lAQN  CIRCULATING 


CHECK  FOR  UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING  COPY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/pruningexperimen3263blak 


‘ f J / ( 
I ' '' 


imi  JH-ESTY  jiaBICULTUIUi.L  FXP^EI« 
imm  STJiTIONS 


BULLETINS 

326-335 


1917-19 


NEW  BRUNSWICK,  NEW  JERSEY 


327  Comiriercial  feeding  stuffs  and  registrations  for 

1918  by  C.  S.  Cathcart 

328  Some  important  orchard  plant  lice  by  T.  J.  Headlee 

329  Profits  and  factors  influencing  profits  on  150 

poultry  farms  in  Now  Jersey  by  F.  i^.pp  and  others 

^,0  Report  of  the  director  for  1916  *by  J,  G,  Lipman 

331  Analyses  of  commercial  fertilizers,  fertilizer 

supplies  and  home  mixtures  by  C.  S,  Cathcart 

332  Some  studies  on  the  eggs  of  important  apple  plant 

lice  by  A.  Pe^terson 

333  Analyses  of  materials  sold  as  insecticides  and 

fungicides  during  1918  by  C.  S,  Cathcart  and 
R.  L.  Willis 

334  Analyses  of  commercial  fertilizers  and  ground  bon«; 

analyses  of  agricultural  lime  by  C,  S.  Cathcart 

335  Fertilizer  registrations  for  1919  by  C.  S.  Cathcart 


' ' I ' -A 


,iK  '.si^- . . ''i.  . ■•■'•■.*-tv“-*--A.-,.  '^  ySE-  ' ■:] 


*"  A'  '■'.-  i ■ 


, . ■ ;■  ■ ■ -r  .--  '•  ' ■=-  f' 


■»' 


m 


ict'C: 


:>’■ 


^rsfiiv ;., 


i.tn  -lo 


;/  ‘r  f.;. ‘a:  i-'h  ' i 


,,  .'il.?'.?/;,;  S*;ir:  IflS  ■■  ?■  '%•.:; 5-..  u 


V> 


'■■  '•■,■'  ,'  • ' .''•  -V-: 


-r  i: 

...  ^ • 


c,  V 


PRUNING  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  PEACHES: 

OF  FIRST  TWO  SEASONS 


RESULTS 


JUN  2 ^ 1919 


NEW  JERSEY 

mRimmmi 

SSSPSHIMEHT  StJLTIOITS 

Bulletin  326 

(No.  1 of  Pruning  Series) 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


JlFJn  KUCILTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS* 

NEW  BRUNSWICK.  N.  J. 

STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 


BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 


His  ExC£I.UIMCy  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County 
Atlantic 
Bergen 
Burlington 
Camden 
Cape  May 
Cumberland 
Essex 
Gloucester 
Hudson 
Hunterdon 
Mercer 


Name 

William  A.  Blair 
Arthur  Lozier 
R.  R.  Lippincott 
Ephraim  T.  Gill 
Charles  Vanaman 
Charles  F.  Seabrook 
Zenos  G.  Crane 
Wilbur  Beckett 
Diedrich  Bahrenburg 
Egbert  T.  Bush 
Josiah  T.  Allinson 


Address 
Elwood 
Ridgewood 
Vincentown 
Haddonfield 
Dias  Creek 
Bridgeton 
Caldwell 
Swedesboro 
Union  Hill 
Stockton 
Yardville 


County 

Middlesex 

Monmouth 

Morns 

Ocean 

Passaic 

Salem 

Somerset 

Sussex 

Union 

Warren 


Name 

James  Neilson 
William  H.  Reid 
John  C.  Welsh 
James  E.  Otis 
Isaac  A,  Serven 
Charles  R.  Hires 
Joseph  Larocque 
Robert  V.  Armstrong 
John  Z.  Hatfield 
James  I.  Cooke 


Address 
New  Bruns’k 
Tennent 
Ger’n  Valley 
Tuckerton 
Clifton 
Salem 

Bemardsville 

Augusta 
Scotch  Plains 
Delaware 


STAFF. 

Jacob  G.  Lipman.  Ph.D Director. 

Frank  G.  Helvar,  B.Sc Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

Harriet  E.  GowEn Chief  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 


Frank  App,  B.Sc j Agronomist. 

Irving  L-  Owen,  B.Sc. . .Associate  Agronomist. 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.ScL 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

William  M.  Regan,  A. M.  .Dairy  Husbandman. 
Forrest  Button,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 
John  Hill,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 

Thomas  J.  HeadleE,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc., 

Acting  Horticulturist. 

Vincent  J.  Breazeale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing. 


Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 
William  Schieferstein,  ..Orchard  Foreman. 
Lyman  G.  Schermerhorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 

H.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.Agr.,  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Willard  C.  Thompson,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

George  H.  Pound,  B.Sc.,  ..Poultry  Assistant. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

EemEr  H.  WenE Poultry  Foreman. 

John  P.  Helyap,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc., Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B.,  ....Assistant  Editor. 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian. 

Leslie  E.  Hazen,  M.E., 

In  charge  of  Rural  Engineering. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 


W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. 


STAFF. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Director. 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B Chief  Clerk. 


John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.Sc.  ..  .Assistant  in  Botany. 
Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding. 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.D Asst.  Entomologist. 

Augusta  E-  Meske.  ...  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 


* Staff  list  revised  to  February  i,  1919. 


Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D.  ..  .Plant  Pathologist. 
William  H.  Martin,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Plant  Pathologist. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 
Cyrus  WiTmER,  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


(2) 


NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 
AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Louis  A.  Clinton,  M.Sc.,  Director. 

Mrs.  Fr.'iNK  App,  Acting  State  Home  Demon- 
stration Leader. 

Victor  G.  Aubry,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  W.  Bartlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Superintend- 
ent and  State  Leader  of  Farm  Demonstra- 
tion. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fertility 
and  Agronomy. 


Marjory  Eells,  D.S.,  Home  Demonstration 
! Agent. 

i Edna  Gulick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 
Howard  F.  Hulver,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  State 
Leader  of  Farm  Demonstration. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 

, and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

I Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader, 
William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc.,  Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B.,  Assistant  Editor. 


H.  E.  BaldingEr,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Sussex  County. 

William  P.  BrodiE,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent,  Salem  County. 

Frank  A.  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
. County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County.  ! 

Laura  V.  Clark,  A.B.,  Home  Demonstration  [ 
Agent  for  Newark. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Camden  County, 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

L«E  W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Ellwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent,  Monmouth  County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  for 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  A.  Hofeman,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent,  Morris  County. 

Harry  B.  Holcombe,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Burlin^on  County. 


William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Elva  Hughes,  Assistant  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Burlington  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

May  D.  Kemp,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

Zelma  Monroe,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

Adelia  F.  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  foi 
Cumberland  County. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstratoi 

for  Cape  May  County. 

I W.  Raymond  Stone,  Demonstrator  for  Bergen 
! County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  WettyEn,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

I Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
I Agent  for  Bergen  County, 

j Albert  E-  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstration 

I Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 

(3) 


CONTENTS 


T , . 

Introduction,  5 

Types  of  Pruning  Studied,  6 

Varieties  Chosen  for  the  Experiment,  7 

Location  and  Establishment  of  Experiment  Orchards 7 

Vineland  Experiments,  7 

New  Brunswick  Experiments,  8 

Twig  Growth  Made  by  the  Trees  at  Vineland  During  1912,  8 

Growth  by  Plots  Arranged  According  to  Future  Treatments,  10 

Measurement  of  Circumference  at  Vineland,  12 

Measurement  of  Circumference  Arranged  According  to  Future 

Treatments,  14 

Effect  of  Dynamiting  the  Soil  Previous  to  the  Planting  of  the  Trees,  ....  15 

Measurement  of  Twig  Growth  at  New  Brunswick,  1912,  16 

Growth  by  Plots  Arranged  According  to  Future  Treatments,  17 

Measurement  of  Circumference  at  New  Brunswick,  1912,  19 

Pruning  of  the  Trees  Following  the  First  Season’s  Growth,  21 

Summer  Pruning  at  Vineland  During  1913,  '. . 23 

Summer  Pruning  at  New  Brunswick  During  1913,  25 

Illustrations  of  Pruning  in  Summer,  26 

Twig  Growth  Made  During  1913,  at  Vineland,  26 

Growth  by  Plots  Arranged  According  to  Future  Treatments,  28 

Comparisons  on  Basis  of  Per  Cent  Gain  in  Twig  Growth  Over  that 

of  1912,  29 

Gain  in  Twig  Growth  by  Treatments  at  Vineland,  31 

Twig  Growth  Made  During  1913,  at  New  Brunswick,  31 

Comparison  of  Total  Growth  on  the  Basis  of  Treatment,  33 

Comparison^'  on  Basis  of  Per  Cent  Gain  in  Twig  Growth  Over  that 

of  1912,  34 

Gain  in  Twig  Growth  According  to  Treatments,  36 

A Comparison  of  the  Growth  Made  by  Trees  of  Varying  Vigor, 36 

Individual  Differences,  42 

Measurement  of  Circumference  of  Trunks  of  Trees  at  Vineland,  1913,..  42 

Average  of  Circumference  Arranged  According  to  Future  Treat- 
ments,   44 

Per  Cent  Increase  in  Trunk  Circumference  During  1913,  45 

Actual  and  P<er  Cent  Gain  in  Circumference  Compared  on  a Basis  of 

Treatment,  45 

Measurement  of  Circumference  of  Trunks  of  Trees  at  New  Brunswick, 

1913,  .••••. , 48 

Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumference  During  1913,  49 

Actual  and  Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumference  and  Gain  in  Twig 

Growth  Compared  on  the  Basis  of  Treatments,  52 

Increase  in  Circumference  of  Trees  of  Varying  Vigor  at  Vineland,  53’ 

Increase  in  Circumference  of  Trees  of  Varying  Vigor  at  New  Bruns- 
wick  55 

Relation  of  Increase  in  Trunk  Circumference  to  Increase  in  Twig  Growth 

at  Vineland,  56 

Relation  of  One  Inch  Increase  in  Circumference  to  Increase  in  Twig 

Growth  by  Treatments,  58 

Relation  of  Increase  in  Trunk  Circumference  to  Increase  in  Twig 

Growth,  at  New  Brunswick,  60 

Dormant  Season  Pruning  at  Vineland,  March,  1914,  62 

Per  Cent  of  Growth  Removed  by  Thinning,  Etc., 65 

Effect  of  vSnmmer  Pruning,  During  1913,  Upon  Total  Growth,  at  Vine- 

land,  *. 68 

Time  Required  for  Pruning,  at  Vineland,  68 

Dormant  vSeason  Pruning  at  New  Brunswick,  February  and  March,  1914, 
Effect  of  Summer  Pruning  During  1913  on  Total  Growth,  at  New  Bruns- 
wick,   71 

Amount  of  Twig  Growth  Removed  in  Cutting  Back  and  Thinning,  at 

New  Brunswick 73 

Summary  of  the  Effects  of  Summer  Pruning,  During  1913,  Upon  Total 

Growth,  at  New  Brunswick,  73 

Time  Required  for  Pruning  at  New  Brunswick 74 

The  Appearance  of  the  Trees  at  the  Close  of  the  Season  of  1913,  1914.  • • 75 

Summary,  77 


(4) 


New  Jersey 

Agricultural  Experiment  5tations 


BULLETIN  326 


MAY  23,  1917 


Pruning  Experiments  with  Peaches 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc. 

AND 

C.  H.  Connors,  B.Sc.* 

The  problems  of  peach  culture  have  been  a feature  of  the 
investigational  work  of  the  horticultural  department  of  the  New 
Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  since  1906.  By  1910 
the  pruning  factor  had  presented  itself  as  a matter  that  required 
further  study  for  a full  understanding  of  the  relation  of  pruning 
to  fertilization. 

A vast  amount  of  theory  about  pruning  has  been  available  for 
years,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  suggest  any  practice  that  would 
be  entirely  original  and  new.  There  has  been  a great  lack  of 
detailed  and  definite  data,  however,  to  esta1)lish  the  status  of 
these  various  practices.  The  object  of  these  pruning  studies 
with  peaches, was  to  attempt  to  secure  data  of  such  a nature  as 
to  furnish  a more  definite  basis  for  judging  the  effect  and  value 
of  the  common  practices  and  principles  of  pruning  peaches. 

A thorough  study  of  pruning  would  include  a consideration 
of  the  following  factors  : 

T.  Effect  of  different  forms  of  pruning  upon  the  amount, 
form  and  character  of  the  wood  growth ; 

2.  Effect  of  pruning  during  the  growing  season  in  comparison 
with  pruning  done  during  the  dormant  season ; 

* Credit  is  due  Prof.  A.  J.  Farley  and  Mr.  G.  B.  Thrasher  who  planted  both 
experiment  orchards,  and  Mr.  William  Schieferstein  and  Mr.  W.  W.  Oley, 
who  assisted  in  securing  records  at  various  times  during  the  first  two  seasons. 

(5) 


6 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


3.  Effect  of  pruning  upon  the  strength,  hardiness  and  length 
of  life  of  the  trees; 

(4.  Effect  of  pruning  upon  the  position,  amount,  size,  color, 
quality  and  time  of  maturity  of  the  fruit; 

5.  Pruning  as  related  to  the  cost  of  spraying,  thinning  and 
picking  the  fruit,  removal  of  borers,  and  other  details  of  orchard 
management. 

It  would  not  be  possible  to  test  every  variation  in  pruning 
practice  in  a detailed  manner,  but  the  work  is  outlined  in  such 
a way  as  to  include  the  more  general  practices. 

TYPES  OE  PRUNING  STUDIED 

The  project  was  planned  to  compare  five  general  forms,  or 
systems,  of  pruning: 

1.  Not  pruned,  in  which  the  trees  are  allowed  to  develop 
according  to  their  natural  habit,  the  only  wood  removed  being 
such  twigs  as  may  have  died  or  branches  that  may  have  been 
broken  by  accident; 

2.  Winter-pruned  but  not  cut  back^  in  which  system  the  tree 
is  allowed  to  assume  its  natural  habit,  but  during  the  dormant 
season  all  dead  twigs  and  interfering  and  crossed  branches  and 
twigs  are  removed,  and  a little  thinning  of  the  top  is  to  be  prac- 
ticed to  prevent  the  formation  of  weak  crotches  and  to  admit 
sufficient  light  for  the  coloring  of  the  fruit; 

3.  Winter-pruned  and  cut  back,  in  which  the  same  system  of 
pruning  as  in  (2)  is  practiced,  but,  in  addition,  the  leading 
branches  and  twigs  are  cut  back  from  one-third  to  one-half  of 
the  previous  season’s  growth ; 

4.  Winter  and  summer- pruned,  in  which  the  treatment  is  the 
same  as  in  (3)  except  that  any  suckers  or  undesirable  shoots 
are  removed  during  the  growing  season,  and  that  all  leading 
shoots  are  pinched  back  during  June  or  July  tO'  encourage  a 
compact  growth  of  the  tree; 

5.  Summer-pruned  only,  in  which  all  pruning  is  done  during 
the  growing  season,  the  type  of  pruning  being  similar  to  (3). 

Treatments  2 and  3 are  the  systems  commonly  used  in  com- 
mercial practice.  The  amount  or  severity  of  the  pruning  varies 
greatlv  with  different  growers,  and  it  would  vary  with  different 


BuIvIvETIN  326 


7 


investigators.  In  these  experiments,  detailed  records  are  kept 
of  the  actual  amount  of  the  growth  pruned  off,  in  an  attempt  to 
make  this  factor  more  definite. 

varieties  chosen  eor  the  experiment 

In  any  pruning  experiment  the  variety  factor  would  need  to 
be  considered  from  three  standpoints : the  habit  of  growth  of 
the  variety,  its  season  of  ripening  and  its  commercial  value. 
Peach  varieties  vary  considerably  in  their  habit  of  growth,  and 
at  least  three  distinct  types  may  be  recognized : 

1.  A free,  spreading,  open  habit  like  Carman  and  Belle; 

2.  A compact  spreading  habit  like  Elberta; 

3.  An  upright  habit  with  numerous  twigs  and  branches  like 
Stump,  Mountain  Rose  and  Early  Crawford. 

Some  distinct  variations  from  these  types  occur  but  they  are 
not  represented  in  any  great  quantity  from  the  commercial 
standpoint.  Carman  was  selected  to  represent  the  spreading 
type,  since  it  is  very  widely  grown  commercially,  and  its  season 
of  ripening  is  early.  Elberta  is  almost  a distinct  type  in  itself  | 
and  the  most  widely  grown  variety.  Stump  is  a well-known 
variety  of  the  third  type.  It  produces  more  twigs  than  such 
sorts  as  Carman  and  Belle,  and  is  comparatively  late  in  ripening, 
as  it  follows  Elberta. 

ROGATION  AND  ESTABLISHMENT  OE  EXPERIMENT  ORCHARDS 

Vineland  Experiments 

The  principal  experiment  was  located  at  the  grounds  of  the 
Training  School  at  Vineland,  N.  J.,  upon  a piece  of  land  ad- 
joining the  fertilizer  plots  which  were  planted  in  1907  and  1908. 
The  sandy  loam  soils  and  the  climate  in  this  section  are  ideal 
for  the  peach,  and  the  trees  grow  rapidly,  reach  a large  size,  and 
come  into  bearing  early.  The  soil  upon  the  experimental  area 
varies  from  a medium  sandy  to  a gravelly  loam.  Previous  to 
1912  this  plot  of  land  was  used  for  the  growing  of  corn  and 
truck  crops,  and  was  in  a good  state  of  cultivation. 

The  experiment  was  planned  to  comprise  10  plots  of  15  trees, 

5 trees  each  of  the  varieties  Stump,  Carman  and  Elberta  being 


8 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


represented.  The  trees  were  set  20  x 25  feet  apart  in  April,  1912. 
Trees  i,  3 and  5 in  each  row  were  planted  by  the  common  furrow 
and  hand  method.  Trees  2 and  4 in  each  row  were  plantetd  in 
holes  blown  by  ^ stick  of  20  per  cent  dynamite  exploded  18 
inches  below  the  surface  of  the  ground. 

The  quality  of  the  trees  was  much  below  the  standard  desired 
and  ordered,  but  it  was  too  late  in  the  season  to  procure  another 
lot  and  they  were  finally  planted.  They  were  all  less  than 
inch  in  caliper  and  some  did  not  exceed  inch.  All  were  cut 
back  tO'  a height  of  18  inches  when  set. 

The  trees  received  fertilization  and  good  culture  during  the 
growing  season  and  no  summer  pruning  was  practiced  the  first 
year. 

New  Brunswick  Experiments 

A duplicate  experiment  with  a smaller  number  of  trees  was 
started  at  the  College  Farm,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.  The  site  is 
somewhat  elevated  and  the  soil  is  a gravelly  Penn  loam  (red 
shale)  which  had  received  good  culture  for  a few  years  previous 
to  the  planting  of  the  orchard.  Peach  trees  grow  to  a large  size 
in  this  locality  but  do  not  develop  or  come  into  bearing  as  early 
as  they  do  at  Vineland.  The  varieties  chosen  for  this  experi- 
ment were  the  same  as  at  Vineland.  The  number  of  plots  was 
limited  to  nine,  however,  and  the  number  of  trees  in  each  plot 
consists  of  3 Elberta,  2 Stump  and  3 Carman. 

The  dynamiting  experiment  also  was  duplicated  and  Trees  2, 
4,  6 and  8 in  each  row  were  planted  by  the  furrow  and  hand 
method,  while  Trees  i,  3,  5 and  7 were  planted  by  the  use  of 
dynamite,  as  previously  described. 

These  trees  were  similar  in  quality  to  those  planted  at  Vine- 
land  and  received  fertilization  and  good  culture  during  the  grow- 
ing season.  Here,  as  at  Vineland,  no  summer  pruning  was 
attempted  during  the  first  season. 

TWIG.  GROWTH  MADE  BY  THE  TREES  AT  VINEEAND  DURING  I912' 

Tn  order  to  secure  an  accurate  record  of  the  vigor  of  each  and 
all  of  the  trees  in  the  experiments,  measurements  in  linear  inches 


BuI.LvKTIN  326 


9 


were  taken  of  the  twig  growth  made  'by  each  tree  during  the 
season  of  1912.  Table  i gives  these  results.  In  all  tabulations 
fractions  of  less  than  0.5  are  disregarded,  while  fractions 
amounting  to  0.5  and  over  are  added  as  units.  In  all  tables  of 
summaries,  Trees  i in  each  row  is  omitted  from  the  calculations. 
All  percentages  and  averages  are  computed  from  totals  and  are 
never  averages  of  averages. 


Tabi.e  I 

Measurement  oe  Twig  Growth 
ViNEEAND,  1912 


pruning 

treatment 

Row 

Variety 

'Tree  1 

Tree  2 

Tree  3 

Tree  4 

Tree  5 

Average 

Not  pruned 

1 

Stump 

Inches 

491 

1 

Inches 

545 

Inches 

273 

Inches 

860 

Inches 

767 

Inches 

611 

2 1 

Carman 

643 

890 

800 

734 

767 

3 

1 Elberta 

218 

504 

967 

736 

Winter 

4 

Stump 

563 

636 

900 

774 

718 

not  cut 

5 

Carman 

528 

969 

408 

969 

842 

797 

back 

6 

Elberta,  

321 

431 

734 

648 

534 

Summer 

7 

Stump 

817 

855 

711 

794 

only 

8 

Carman,  

734 

616 

1068 

1096 

879 

9 

Elberta 

232 

749 

774 

681 

478 

671 

Winter  and 

10 

Stump 

507 

1065 

580 

1254 

777 

919 

summer 

11 

Carman,  

441 

731 

585 

839 

767 

731 

12 

Elberta,  

201 

685 

633 

659 

Winter 

13 

Stump 

448 

707 

648 

563 

827 

686 

cut 

14 

Carman,  

485 

692 

548 

575 

back 

15 

Elberta 

99 

571 

439 

669 

419 

525 

Winter 

16 

Stump,  

424 

863 

640 

1010 

930 

861 

not  cut 

17 

Carman 

1 1080 

369 

579 

306 

584 

back 

IS 

Elberta,  

324 

679 

578 

• ••  1 

542 

600 

Not 

19 

Stump 

600 

773  1 

1 505 

817 

1 

662 

689 

pruned 

20 

Carman 

261 

740 

327 

1177 

860 

776 

21 

Elberta,  

585 

619 

454 

1 

721 

598 

Winter 

22 

Stump,  

633 

1078 

504  1 

726 

777 

771 

and 

23 

Carman,  

1 927 

628 

1 657 

1 643 

714 

summer 

24 

Elberta 

393  j 

I 1201 

973  1 

713 

630 

879 

Winter 

25 

Stump,  

470 

971 

1 

1 963  1 

I 1392 

841 

1042 

cut 

26 

Carman 

393  1 

895 

941  1 

1174 

685 

934 

back 

27 

Elberta,  

542  1 

i 806 

621  1 

659 

1509 

899 

Summer 

28 

Stump,  1 

1 

572  1 

1 

910 

1 

708  1 

1 

1202  1 

909 

932 

only 

29 

Carman 

255 

1 1053 

270  1 

733  1 

802 

715 

30 

Elberta | 

! 265 

1 

1 743 

1 

548  I 

1 

I 584 

1 I 

725 

650 

With  a few  exceptions  the  trees  made  a good  growth  during 
the  season  of  1912.  Trees  i in  all  rows,  planted  along  a 
former  line  between  two  farms,  were  more  or  less  irregular  and 
are  not  considered  in  the  averages.  In  addition,  the  following 


lO 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


trees  either  died  or  were  so  lacking  in  vigor  that  they  had  to  be 
replanted:  Row  3,  Trees  4 and  5;  Row  7,  Tree  2;  Row  12, 
Trees  2 and  3;  Row  14,  Tree  2;  Row  18,  Tree  4;  Row  21,  Tree 
4,  a total  of  8 trees  out  of  1 50. 

It  may  be  noted  from  the  results  in  table  i that  the  trees  made 
a somewhat  better  growth  at  the  west  end  of  the  orchard  than 
at  the  east  end,  and  that  Plot  5 made  the  poorest  average  growth. 

The  average  total  linear  twig  growth  in  inches  for  all  varieties 
was  746.  The  Stump  made  the  greatest  total  growth  of  the 
three  varieties,  averaging  800-  inches.  Carman  was  second  with 
an  average  of  750  inches  and  Elberta  was  third  with  an  average 
of  677  inches.  These  are  fairly  good  averages  for  the  number 
of  trees,  the  varieties  concerned  and  the  region  in  which  they 
were  planted.  A somewhat  larger  growth  might  have  been 
obtained  with  better  stock. 

Stump,  Row  25,  Tree  4,  made  the  largest  amount  of  growth 
for  that  variety  with  a total  of  1392  inches.  Stump,  Row  i. 
Tree  3,  was  the  poorest,  making  a total  of  only  273  inches.  Nine- 
teen Stump  trees  made  a growth  above  the  average,  and  20 
made  growth  that  was  below  the  average  for  that  variety. 

Of  the  Carman  trees.  Row  20,  Tree  4 made  the  best  growth, 
with  a total  of  1177  inches,  and  Row  29,  Tree  3 made  the  poorest 
growth,  with  a total  of  270  inches.  This  is  the  poorest  tree 
that  is  considered  in  the  averages.  There  were  17  trees  above 
and  22  below  the  average  for  the  variety. 

Of  the  Elberta  trees.  Row  27,  Tree  5 was  the  largest  for  the 
variety  and  for  the  entire  orchard,  with  a total  of  1509  inches. 
Row  6,  Tree  2 was  the  smallest  Elberta  with  a total  growth  of 
32 1 inches.  There  were  14  above  and  20  below  the  average  for 
the  variety. 

Crozvth  by  Plots  Arranged  According  to  Future  Treatments 

The  arrangement  of  the  pruning  treatments  as  to  plots  was 
not  made  until  after  the  measurements  of  growth  were  taken 
and  computed.  An  attempt  was  then  made  to  locate  the  treat- 
ments so  that  any  soil  variations  would  be  checked.  They  were 
assigned  as  follows : 


Ik^lvLKTlN  326 


Plots  I and 

7, 

Plots  2 and 

6, 

Plots  3 and 

10, 

Plots  4 and 

8, 

Plots  5 and 

9> 

Not  pruned. 

Winter-pruned,  not  cut  back. 
Summer-pruned  only. 

Winter-  and  summer-pruned. 
Winter-pruned  and  cut  back. 


Tabi,E  2 


Growth  oe  Peots  According  to  Future  Treatments 
ViNEEAND,  1912 


1 1 


Treat- 

ment 

Not  Pruned 

Winter  Not 
Cut  Back 

Summer 

Winter  and 
Summer 

! Winter  Cut 

1 Back 

All 

Variety 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Tree 

Average  Per 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

All 

1 

10 

698 

2 

12 

681 

3 

11 

780 

4 

10 

792 

5 

11 

597 

7 

11 

696 

6 

11 

689 

10 

12 

765 

8 

12 

788 

9 

12 

955 

Totals, 

21 

697 

23 

686 

23 

772 

22 

790 

23 

784 

112 

746 

Stump,  . . 

1 

4 

611 

2 

4 

718 

3 

3 

794 

1 4 

4 

919 

5 

4 

686 

1 

7 

4 

689 

6 

4 

861 

-10 

4 

932 

* 

4 

771 

9 

4 

1042 

1 

Totals, 

1 

1 

8 

650 

8 

790 

7 

1 

873 

1 

8 

1 

845 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

864 

39 

800 

1 

Carman,  | 

1 

4 

767 

2 

4 

797 

3 

4 

879 

4 

4 

1 

731  1 

1 

5 

3 

575 

1 7 

4 

776 

6 

4 

584 

10 

4 

715 

1 

1 8 

4 

714 

1 

9 

4 

924 

1 

Totals,  1 
1 

8 

771 

8 

690 

8 

1 

796 

8 

722 

7 

774 

1 

39 

1 

750 

1 

Elberta,  | 

1 

2 

736 

2 

4 

534 

3 

4 

671 

4 

2 

659 

5 

4 

525 

1 

1 7 

3 

598 

6 

3 

600 

1 

10 

4 

650  1 
1 

8 

4 

880 

9 

4 

899 

1 

Totals,  I 

5 

653 

7 

562  1 

1 

8 

660  1 
1 

6 

806 

•8 

712 

34 

677 

Table  2 shows  the  comparative  vigor  of  the  trees  at  the  close 
of  the  season  of  1912,  as  assigned  to  the  various  treatments. 
The  treatments  rank  in  the  following  order,  all  three  varieties 
being  considered : 


Av.  growth  per  tree  (in.) 


1.  Winter  and  summer,  790 

2.  Winter  cut  back,  784 

3.  Summer  only,  772 

4.  Not  pruned,  697 

5.  Winter  not  cut  back,  686 


12 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


The  treatments  take  somewhat  different  rank  where  each 
variety  is  considered  separately.  The  “not  primed”  treatment 
ranks  third  in  the  case  of  Carman,  and  fourth  and  fifth  in  the 
case  of  Elberta  and  Stump,  respectively.  The  “winter  and  not 
cut  back”  treatment  ranks  last  in  the  case  of  Carman  and 
Elberta.  These  variations  according  to  variety  will  receive  atten- 
tion as  the  experiment  proceeds. 

MEASUREMENT  OF  CIRCUMFERENCE  AT  VINELAND 

It  was  thought  that  the  measurement  of  the  total  linear  twig 
growth  of  each  tree  in  the  experiments  would  become  too  great 
a task  after  a time,  and  that  it  would  be  well  to  study  the  relation 
between  the  rate  of  increase  in  the  girth  of  the  trunk  and  the 
amount  of  twig  growth.  The  trees  when  received  from  the 
nursery  varied  considerably  as  to  caliper,  and  differences  were 
still  apparent  at  the  end  of  the  first  season’s  growth,  as  is  shown 
in  table  3.  This  table  gives  the  circumference,  in  inches,  of  each 
tree,  taken  about  six  inches  from  the  ground.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  following  trees  had  trunks  that  branched  at  or  below 
that  point:  Row  r,  Trees  i and  3;  Row  3,  Trees  i,  2 and  3: 
Row  8,  Tree  4 ; Row  16,  Tree  2;  Row  18,  Tree  2;  Row  19, 
Tree  2;  Row  20,  Trees  2 and  3 ; Row  21,  Trees  2 and  5;  Row 
24,  Tree  3 ; Row  27,  Tree  i ; Row  30,  Trees  2 and  3. 

In  computing  the  averages.  Tree  i in  each  row  is  not  con- 
sidered, following  the  same  plan  as  in  tabulating  the  amount  of 
twig  growth. 

Row  8,  Tree  5 (Carman),  had  the  largest  girth  for  all  varieties 
at  the  end  of  1912,  measuring  5.25  inches.  The  smallest  girth 
measured  was  that  of  Row  8,  Tree  2 (Carman),  2.12  inches. 
The  average  for  all  the  trees  of  all  varieties  was  3.95  inches. 
48  being  above  the  average  and  50  below. 

Stump  had  the  greatest  average  girth  of  the  three  varieties 
compared,  with  an  average  measurement  of  4.17  inches.  Eigh- 
teen were  above  average  and  18  below.  Row  10,  Tree  4 had  the 
largest  girth  of  any  Stump,  with  a measurement  of  5.12  inches, 
while  Row  28,  Tree  2 had  the  smallest,  3.12  inches. 


BUI.I.ETIN  3^6 


13 


Carman  had  the  largest  tree  as  to  trunk  circumference  and 
also  the  smallest  tree,  noted  above.  The  average  girth  for  the 
variety  was  3.92  inches,  19  being  above  the  average  and  17 
below. 

Tabi^e  3 

Measurement  oe  Circumeerences 
ViNEEAND,  1912 


PRUNING 

TREATMENT 

Row 

Variety 

♦Tree  1 

Tree  2 

Tree  3 

Tree  4 

Tree  5 

Average 

Not  pruned 

1 

Stump 

Inches 

Br. 

Inches 

3.37 

Inches 

Br. 

Inches 

5.00 

Inches 

4.25 

Inches 

4.21 

2 

Carman,  

.... 

4.25 

4.12 

3.50 

4.75 

4.16 

3 

Elberta,  

Br.  1 

Br. 

Br. 

1 

Winter 

4 

Stump,  

.... 

3.50 

4.00 

4.75 

4.37 

4.16 

not  cut 

5 

1 Carman | 

3.25 

3.36 

3.25 

3.37 

4.37 

3.59 

back 

a 

1 Elberta,  | 

1 

1 

3.62 

3.66 

3.75 

4.00 

3.76 

Summer 

1 

1 Stump 1 

1 

.... 

4.25 

3.88 

4.88 

4.34 

only 

s 

1 Carman | 

2.12 

4.25 

Br. 

5.25 

3.87 

9 

1 Elberta 

1 

2.50 

3.75 

3.25 

4.25 

3.75 

3.75 

Winter 

10 

1 

Stump,  

3.50 

3.75 

4.00 

5.12 

4.50 

4.34 

and 

11 

Carman 

3.25 

3.75 

3.88 

3.75 

4.62 

4.00 

summer 

12 

Elberta,  

2.50 

3.12 

3.62 

3.37 

Winter 

13 

1 

Stump 1 

j 

3.00 

3.62 

4.00 

3.75 

4.62 

4.00  '* 

cut 

14 

Carman,  | 

3.88 

3.12 

3.62 

3.54 

back 

15 

Elberta | 

1 

2.50 

3.88 

1 

3.37 

1 

3.50 

3.31 

Winter 

IG 

Stump,  I 

2.75 

Br. 

3.75 

4.75 

4.75 

4.42 

not  cut 

17 

Carman,  | 

4.12 

3.. 36 

4.00 

3.37 

3.95 

back 

18 

Elberta,  | 

1 

2.12 

Br. 

2.88 

5.12 

4.00 

Not  pruned 

19 

1 

1 Stump,  

1 

2.88 

Br. 

3.88 

4.00 

4.50 

4.13 

20  1 

Carman 

2.00 

Br. 

Br. 

4.37 

5.00 

4.69 

21 

Elberta,  

3.00 

Br. 

3.00 

Br. 

3.00 

Winter 

22 

Stump,  

2.62 

4.88 

3.88  1 

1 4.25 

4.25 

4.32 

and 

23 

Carman 

4.00 

3.50 

3.62 

4.00 

3.78 

summer 

24 

Elberta,  

3.12 

3.75 

Br. 

3.50 

4.37 

3.87 

Winter 

25 

Stump,  1 

1 

3.00 

4.25  1 

1 

1 3.88 

4.37 

4.37 

4.22 

cut  back 

26 

Carman,  

1 3.12 

4.88 

1 3.50 

4.75 

4.12 

4.31 

27 

Elberta,  | 

1 

Br. 

1 

3.75  1 

3.25 

1 1 

4.12 

5.00 

4.03 

Summer 

28 

1 

Stump 1 

1 

2.75 

3.12 

1 

3.75  1 

1 

3.88 

4.12 

3.72 

only 

29 

Carman 1 

2.62 

4.12 

2.75 

4.25 

4.37 

3.87 

30 

1 

Elberta I 

i 1 

2.12 

Br. 

Br. 

3.36 

3.75 

3.56 

* Tree  1 of  each  row  is  not  included  in  average. 


Elberta  had  the  smallest  average  circumference,  the  average 
being  3.69  inches.  Thirteen  trees  were  above  average  and  13 
below.  Row  18,  Tree  5 had  the  largest  girth  for  the  variety, 
measuring  5.12  inches.  Row  15,  Tree  2 was  the  smallest  with 
a circumference  of  2.50  inches.  It  will  be  noted  that  in  the 
case  of  Elberta  in  the  ‘‘not  pruned”  treatment  there  is  only  one 
tree  that  can  be  considered  in  the  averages  as  tO'  circumference. 


14 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Measurement  of  Circumference  Arranged  According  to  Future 

Treatments 

lable  4 shows  the  average  circumferences  as  they  would  affect 
the  future  pruning  treatment  of  the  different  plots.  The  rank  of 
the  various  treatments,  all  varieties  being  considered,  is  as 
follows : 

Average 

circumference 

Inches 


1.  Not  pruned,  4.15 

2.  Winter-  and  summer-pruned,  4.01 

3.  Winter  cut  back,  3.92 

4.  Winter  not  cut  back,  3.91 

5.  Summer,  3.85 


Table  4 

Measurement  of  Circumferences  in  Plots  According  to  Future 
Treatments 

Vineland,  1912 


Treat- 

ment 

Unpruned 

Winter  Not 
Cut  Back 

Summer 

1 Winter  and 

1 Summer 

1 

Winter  Cut 
Back 

All 

j Variety 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Ti-ee 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

m 

Ol 

*-< 

H 

OJ 

s 

cu 

9 

bA 

cd 

1 ^ 0 

33 

1 

All 1 

1 

Inches 

1 I 7 4.18 

1 7 6 4.1.3 

1 

Inches 
2 12  3.83 

6 9 4.01 

Inches 
3 10  3.96 

10  10  3.75 

1 

Inches 
4 10  4.01 

8 11  4.00 

1 

Inches 
5 11  3.62 

9 12  4.19 

1 

1 

1 

Inches 

Totals, 

Stump,  . . 

1 13  4.15 

1 1 3 4.21 

7 3 4.13 

21  3.91 

2 4 4.16 

1 G 3 4.42 

1 

20  3.85 

3 3 4. .34 

10  4 3.72 

1 

1 21  4.01 

4 4 4. .34 

8 4 4.32 

23  3.92 

5 4 4.00 

9 4 4.22 

98 

1 

3.95 

Totals. 

G 4.17  1 

1 

7 4.27 

1 

7 3.98 

1 

8 4.33 

8 4.11 

36 

4.17 

Carman. 

1 4 4.1G 

1 

2 4 3.59  1 

1 

3 3 3.87 

4 4 4.00 

5 3 3.. 54 

7 2 4.G9 

G 4 3.95 

1 1 

10  4 3.87 

8 4 3.78 

9 4 4.31 

1 

1 

Totals, 

G 4.33  1 

1 1 
8 3.G5 

V .X8T  j 

' 8 3.89 

1 

7 3.98 

36 

1 3.92 

1 

Elherta, 

1 1 

1 2 4 3.7G  1 

3 4 3.75  1 

1 

4 2 .3.37 

5 4 3.31 

1 

1 

7 1 3.00 

6 2 4.00 

1 1 

10  2 3.56  1 

1 

i 8 3 3.87 

1 

9 4 4.03 

Totals.] 

' 1 3.00  1 

1 ' 

1 1 
6 3.84  1 

6 3.69  j 

' 5 3.67 

8 3.67 

26 

3.69 

BuI^IvETIN  326 


5 


The  difference  between  the  highest  and  the  lowest  is  only  0.30 
inch,  which  means  a difference  of  less  than  ^ inch  in  the 
diameter.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  trees  of  the  “not  primed” 
treatment  show  the  largest  average  circumference,  yet  these  trees 
rank  fourth  in  average  twig  growth.  The  fact  that  only  13 
trees  of  this  treatment  are  averaged  as  to  circumference  of 
trunks,  and  also  that  they  branch  close  to  the  ground,  probably 
accounts  for  the  result. 

The  rank  of  treatments  by  varieties  is  as  follows : 

Average 

circumference 


Stump — Inches 

1.  Winter  and  summer,  4.33 

2.  Winter  not  cut  back,  4.27 

3.  Not  pruned,  4.17 

4.  Winter  cut  back,  4.1 1 

5.  vSummer,  3.98 

Carman — 

1.  Not  pruned,  4.33 

2.  Winter  cut  back,  3.98 

3.  Winter  and  summer,  3.89 

4.  Summer,  3.87 

5.  Winter  not  cut  back,  3.65 

Elberta — 

1.  Winter  not  cut  back,  3.84 

2.  Summer,  3.69 

.3.  Winter  cut  back,  3.67 

4.  Winter  and  summer,  3.67 

5.  Not  pruned,  3.00  ~ 


The  averages  for  the  various  treatments  are  fairly  uniform. 
The  maximum  difference  in  average  circumference  between  the 
different  pruning  treatments  of  the  variety  Stump  is  0.28  inch, 
or  a little  less  than  ^ inch  in  diameter.  Bor  Carman  this 
difference  is  0.68  inch,  or  inch  difference  in  diameter;  and 
for  Elberta,  0.84  inch,  or  inch  in  diameter. 


EFFECT  OF  DYNAMITING  THE  SOIL  PREVIOUS  TO  THE  PUANTING 

OF  THE  trees 

The  dynamiting  experiment  was  a special  study  planned  and 
conducted  by  Mr.  Arthur  J.  Earley,  and  reports  upon  the  results 


i6  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

of  this  test  have  been  made  by  him  from  time  to  timed  The 
results  will  be  considered  in  this  discussion  only  in  so  far  as 
they  may  relate  to  the  pruning  work.  This  refers  to  the  experi- 
ments at  both  Vineland  and  New  Brunswick. 

MEASUREMENT  OE  TWIG  GROWTH  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK,  I912 

Measurements  were  made  of  the  twig  growth  of  the  trees  at 
the  College  Farm  at  the  close  of  the  first  growing  season,  and 
the  results  are  given  in  table  5.  The  amount  of  growth  made 


Table  5 

Measurements  oe  Twig  Growth 
New  Brunswick,  1912 


VARIETY 

II  1 1 1 1 

|Ro’«  i|  Row  2|Row  SjRow  4 Row  5] 

II  1 1 1 1 

Row  6 

1 

Row  7| 

Row  8 

Row  9 

All  Rows 

Tree 

i 

NP  1 

1 1 

WNCBI 

1 1 

1 

W&  Sj 

' ^ 1 

1 

WCB  1 
1 

|W&  S 

1 

S jWNCB 

WCB 

1 

1 

Inchesl  Inches 

1 

Inches 

1 j 

Inchesl  Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta 

1 

341  1 

246 

433 

206 

162  1 

108 

3.30 

338 

261 

2 

750 

400 

250 

333 

627  1 

633 

267 

493 

528 

3 

620 

132 

186 

119 

262  1 

444 

338 

797 

156 

4 

427 

Average,  

1 

570  1 301 

1 

290 

219 

350 

395 

312 

543 

315 

364 

Stump 

4 

1 

625  1 

757  1 

418  1 

747 

924 

649 

653 

1239 

5 

490 

1 486 

I 314 

353  1 

1 

1 606  1 

1 812 

463 

484 

324 

Average,  

1 

558  1 486 

1 

536  1 

386 

1 

677 

868 

556 

569 

782 

609 

Carman 

6 

1 

1 108 

427 

1 

1 438 

519 

318 

998 

484 

295 

1 T 

170 

190 

160 

1 532 

214 

324 

508 

624 

306 

8 

474 

1 314 

1 

334 

1 528 

1 

334 

270 

310 

540 

680 

Average 

322 

1 

1 204 

307 

1 

499 

356 

304 

605 

550 

427 

400 

All 

I 

Average 

1 •• 

1 

1 496 

1 

j 288 

3.58 

366 

1 4.34 

1 

479 

1 

483 

552 

474 

436 

Note. — In  this  and  succeeding  tables  NP  represents  “Not  Pruned”;  WNCB,  “Winter  Not 
Cut  Back”;  W & S “Winter  and  Summer”;  S,  “Summer  Only”;  WCB,  “Winter  Cut  Back.” 


by  the  trees  may  be  said  to  be  fair  to  good  for  the  locality,  the 
average  for  all  varieties  being  436  inches.  The  growth  at  New 
Brunswick,  however,  is  considerably  below  that  made  at  Vine- 
land,  the  average  difference  being  311  inches.  This  would  be^ 
equivalent  to  31  branches  10  inches  long  or  about  26  branches 

^ Some  results  of  dynamiting  for  tree  planting.  In  N.  J,  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 
34th  Ann.  Kept.,  1913,  p.  120-129.  Planting  trees  with  dynamite.  In  Proc. 
N.  J .State  Hort.  Soc.,  1913. 


BuIvIvETIN  326 


17 


12  inches  long.  All  of  the  trees  lived,  and  although  the  amount 
of  linear  twig  growth  in  a few  cases  was  small,  all  were  allowed 
to  remain  and  none  were  replanted  at  the  close  of  the  first 
season. 

The  growth  considered  by  rows  was  fairly  uniform,  except  in 
Rows  2,  3 and  4. 

There  was  some  variation  in  growth  according  to  variety. 
Stump  made  the  largest  average  growth,  with  609  inches.  Car- 
man was  second  with  an  average  of  400  inches,  and  Elberta 
third  with  an  average  of  364  inches.  This  is  the  same  relative 
behavior  of  the  varieties  as  occurred  at  Vineland. 

A consideration  of  the  individual  trees  of  the  three  varieties 
shows  the  following  result.  The  largest  Stump  tree  was  Row  9, 
Tree  4,  with  a total  linear  twig  growth  of  1239  inches;  and  the 
smallest.  Tree  5 in  Row  3,  with  a total  growth  of  314  inches. 
Eight  trees  were  above  and  9 below  the  average  of  609  inches. 

The  largest  Carman  tree  was  Row  7,  Tree  6.  This  tree  made 
a total  twig  growth  of  998  inches.  The  smallest  Carman  tree 
was  Row  2,  Tree  6,  with  a total  twig  growth  of  108  inches. 
Twelve  Carman  trees  were  above  and  14  below  the  average  of 
400  inches. 

The  largest  Elberta  tree  was  Row  8,  Tree  3,  with  a total  linear 
twig  growth  of  797  inches;  the  smallest  was  Row  6,  Tree  i, 
with  a total  of  108  inches.  Eleven  Elberta  trees  were  above  the 
average  twig  growth  of  364  inches,  and  17  were  below. 


Growth  by  Plots  Arranged  According  to  Future  Treatments 


Following  the  plan  adopted  at  Vineland,  after  the  measure- 
ments of  twig  growth  were  computed  for  the  first  season,  the 
rows  for  the  different  treatments  were  selected.  This  was  done 
in  such  a way  as  to  have  the  average  for  the  various  treatments 
as  uniform  as  possible.  The  rows  assigned  to  the  various  treat- 
ments were  as  follows ; 


Row  I, 

Rows  2 and  8, 
Rows  3 and  6, 
Rows  4 and  7, 
Rows  5 and  9, 


Not  pruned. 

Winter  not  cut  back. 
Winter  and  summer. 
Summer  only. 

Winter  cut  back. 


i8  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

It  was  not  possible  to  have  more  than  one  row  for  the  “not 
pruned”  treatment,  and  the  selection  of  an  outside  row  is  a little 
unfortunate,  since  there  is  a considerable  cultivated  area  beyond 
it.  These  conditions  should  favor  this  row,  since  there  is  no 
chance  of  its  being  restricted  in  growth  by  lack  of  moisture  or 
light  as  a result  of  the  near  presence  of  another  row  of  trees. 

In  Row  2 (see  table  5)  it  will  be  noted  that  Tree  4 proved  to 
be  an  Elberta  and  not  a Stump. 

Table  6 shows  the  average  total  linear  twig  growth  of  the 
various  rows  as  selected  for  the  treatments. 


Tabce  6 

Growth  by  Pbots  According  to  Future  Treatments 
New  Brunswick,  1912 


VARIETY 

TREATMENT 

Not  Pruned 

Winter  Not 
Cut  Back 

Winter 

Cut  Back 

Winter  and 
Summer 

Summer 

< 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta 

570 

472 

333 

342 

266 

364 

Stump 

558 

541 

729 

74)2 

471 

609 

Carman,  

322 

452 

391 

30G 

552 

400 

1 

1 496 

1 

480 

1 

454 

418 

424 

436 

When  all  varieties  are  considered  the  ranking  upon  this  basis 


is  as  follows : 

Inches 

1.  Not  pruned,  496 

2.  Winter  not  cut  back,  480 

3.  Winter  cut  back,  ^ 454 

4.  Summer  only,  424 

5.  Winter  and  summer,  418 


Separate  rankings  according  to  varieties  vary  fromi  the  rank- 
ing for  all  varieties.  The  “not  pruned”  treatment  is  first  with 
Elberta,  but  third  and  fifth  with  Stump  and  Carman,  respectively. 
The  “winter  not  cut  back”  treatment  is  second  in  the  case  of 
Elberta  and  Carman,  but  fourth  with  Stump.  “Winter  cut 
back”  is  the  first  in  rank  with  Stump,  but  third  with  Carman  and 
fourth  with  Elberta.  The  “winter  and  summer”  treatment  is 


Bulletin  326 


19 


second,  third  and  fourth  with  Stump,  Elberta  and  Carman, 
respectively.  The  “summer  only”  treatment  ranks  first  with 
Carman,  but  fifth  with  both  Elberta  and  Stump.  This  varietal 
difference  may  need  to  be  considered  in  the  future  performances 
of  the  trees.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  is  the  rank  of  the 
treatments  just  previous  to  the  beginning  of  the  actual  pruning 
work. 

MEASUREMENT  OF  CIRCUMFERENCE  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK,  I912 

The  girth  of  the  trees  in  the  experiments  at  the  College  Farm 
also  were  taken,  and  the  results  appear  in  table  7.  The  follow- 
ing trees  were  branched  at  the  ground  and  were  not  considered 
in  the  averages : 

Row  I,  Trees  i,  3,  5;  Row  2,  Tree  5;  Row  3,  Tree  4;  Row  6,  Tree  4; 
Row  8,  Tree  8. 


Tabi.e  7 

Measurements  oe  Circumferences 
New  Brunswick,  1912 


VARIETY 

Row  1 

■f 

1 Row  2 
1 

Row  3 

1 

I Row  4 

1 

Row  5|Row  6 
1 

Row  7 

Row  8 

Row  9 

All 

Rows 

0 

0 

H 

NP 

1 

IWNCB 

1 

1 

W&  S 

1 

1 

1 WCB 

1 1 

||W&  S 

1 

S 

WNCB 

WCB 

'^Air 

Treat- 

ments 

1 

1 

! 

Inches!  Inches 

Inches 

1 ' ! 
Inches|Inches| 

Inches 

1 

Inches 

1 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta 

1 

...  1 

3.31 

3.37 

3.50  1 

3.75  1 

3.81 

3.75 

4.31 

3.87 

1 

2 

3.12 

2.93 

2.81 

2.81  1 

2.43  1 

3.75 

2.00 

2.00 

2.18 

1 3 

1 2.18 

3.00 

3.12  1 

3.06  1 

2.81 

2.93 

3.37 

3.18 

1 4 

I 3.12 

1 

Average | 

1 ” 

3.12  I 

1 

1 

2.89 

1 

3.06  I 

3.14 

1 

3.08 

i 

3.46 

2.89 

3.23 

3.08 

3.10 

Stump,  1 

1 

4 

1 

3.93  1 

1 

1 

2.93 

1 

3.81 

3.50 

3.37 

3.37 

1 

1 ^ 

3’.  25 

3.81 

4.00 

2.93 

3.18 

4.00 

4.00 

Average | 

1 

! ' 

3.93 

3.25 

3.37 

3.91 

2.93 

3.34 

3.69 

3.69 

3.54 

Carman 

1 

1 6 

4.00  1 

1 

1 2.50 

2.68 

2.56 

3.68  1 

3.37 

3.12 

4.31 

2.56 

4.68 

3.18 

2.00 

3.12 

3.93 

3.00 

3.00 

3.18 

3.62 

1 ® 

3.75  ( 3.00 

1 

3.00 

2.93 

2.87 

1 

2.62 

3.50 

2.75 

Average,  

! •• 

1 

4.14  ! 

1 2.89  1 

2.56  1 

1 

2.87  1 

1 

1 

3.49 

1 

3.00 

1 

3.21 

3.75 

• 2.98 

3.19 

All 

1 

1 

1 ■ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Average,  

1- 

3.90  1 2.89 

1 

1 2.87 

1 

1 3.10  1 

I 3.44  1 

I 3.18 

1 

3.12 

3.51 

3.19 

3.22 

The  average  circumference  of  all  the  trees  was  3.22  inches, 
which  is  0.73  inches  below  the  average  of  the  Vineland  trees. 


20  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

The  largest  tree  was  Row  i,  Tree  7 (Carman),  with  a girth  of 
4.68  inches.  Three  are  tied  in  rank  as  to  smallest  circumference, 
Row  3,  Tree  7 (Carman) ; Row  7,  Tree  2 (Elberta),  and  Row  8, 
Tree  2 (Elberta),  with  a circumference  of  2 inches.  The  Carman 
variety  had  the  poorest  tree  at  both  Vineland  and  New  Bruns- 
wick. This  was  undoubtedly  due  to  the  poor  quality  of  the  trees 
when  purchased,  since  Carman  is  in  general  a more  vigorous 
grower  than  Elberta. 

TABrE  8 

Average  Circumeerences  According  to  Future  Treatments 
New  Brunswick,  1912 


variety 

TREATMENT 

Not  Pruned 

Winter  Not 
Cut  Back 

Winter 

Cut  Back 

Winter  and 
Summer 

Summer 

< 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta,  

3.12 

3.54 

3.08 

3.26 

3.02 

3.10 

Stump 

3.93 

3.69 

3.80 

3.09 

3.36 

3.54 

Carman,  

4.14 

3.29 

3.24 

2.78 

3.04 

3.19 

All 

3.90 

3.44 

3.32 

3.03 

3.11 

3.22 

The  average  girth  of  the  Stump  trees  was  3.54  inches,  the 
highest  for  the  three  varieties.  The  largest  Stump  trees  are 
Trees  5 in  Rows  5,  8 and  9,  with  girths  of  4.00  inches,  and  the 
smallest  circumference  occurred  with  Row  4,  Tree  4,  and  Row 
6,  Tree  5,  which  made  circumferences  of  2.93  inches. 

The  average  girth  of  the  Carman  trees  was  3.19  inches,  which 
is  the  poorest  average  for  the  three  varieties.  The  largest 
Carman  was  Row  i.  Tree  7,  with  a girth  of  4.68  inches,  and  this 
is  the  largest  tree  of  all  the  varieties.  Row  3,  Tree  7 measured 
2.00  inches  in  circumference. 

The  average  girth  of  the  Elberta  trees  was  3.10  inches.  The 
largest  was  Row  8,  Tree  i,  with  a girth  of  4.31  inches;  Row  7, 
Tree  2,  and  Row  8,  Tree  2,  were  smallest  with  a circumference  of 
2 inches. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  trees  which  were  the  largest 
and  the  smallest  in  circumference  were  not  identical  with  the  trees 
making  the  largest  and  the  smallest  amounts  of  twig  growth, 
respectively.  After  the  future  pruning  treatments  had  been 


Bulletin  326 


21 


assigned,  it  was  found  that  the  rank  according  to  average  circum- 
ference considering  all  varieties  was  as  follows : 

Average 

circumference 

Inches 


1.  Not  primed,  3.90 

2.  Winter  not  cut  back,  3.44 

3.  Winter  cut  back,  3.32 

4.  Summer  only,  3.1 1 

5.  Winter  and  summer,  3.03 


This  is  the  same  ranking  as  in  the  case  of  average  linear  twig 
growth  (page  18).  The  ranking  of  the  different  varieties,  how- 
ever, varies  from  the  general  average,  as  may  be  noted  in  table  8. 

PRUNING  OE  THE  TREES  EOLLOWING  THE  EIRST  SEASON's  GROWTH 

The  real  work  of  pruning  did  not  begin  until  the  dormant 
season  following  the  first  summer’s  growth.  A discussion  of 
pruning  from  the  standpoint  of  the  mechanical  strength  of 
various  branch  formations,  the  actual  form  of  the  tree  and  the 
varying  of  a treatment  to  meet  the  requirements  of  individual 
trees  and  special  conditions  may  appropriately  be  deferred  until 
a later  period  in  the  progress  of  the  experiments.  A mere  out- 
line of  the  system  of  pruning  in  the  various  treatments  is  given 
at  this  time. 

Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  since  dormant  season 
pruning  may  be  done  in  December  of  one  year  or  carried  on  into 
January,  February  or  March  of  the  next  year,  the  statement 
that  such  a tree  was  pruned  in  1913,  for  example,  might  lead  to 
confusion  as  to  whether  it  was  really  pruned  in  January,  1913, 
or  December,  1913,  which  would  mean  a difference  of  a season 
in  the  age  of  the  trees.  To  avoid  any  possibility  of  a doubt,  the 
two  years  covering  a dormant  season  will  be  noted.  For  ex- 
ample, the  first  summer’s  growth  closed  in  September,  1912,  the 
first  dormant  pruning  will  be  noted  as  that  of  19 12-19 13  and 
the  second  dormant  pruning  will  appear  as  that  of  1913-1914. 

Photographs  have  been  taken  of  a considerable  number  of 
trees  since  the  beginning  of  the  experiments  to  show  the  appear- 
ance of  the  trees  before  and  after  pruning  each  season.  Only  a 
few  trees  are  selected  for  illustration  at  this  time,  and  the  photo- 
graphs recording  the  growth  of  two  seasons  of  each  individual 


22  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

tree  are  shown  on  the  same  page  for  a better  comparison.  A 
photograph  does  not  portray  accurately  the  form  and  spread  of 
the  branches  of  a tree,  since  it  tends  to  give  the  effect  that  all 
branches  are  in  the  same  plane;  and  a top  may  appear  rather 
congested  in  growth  when  in  fact  it  is  well  spread. 

The  ‘Tot  pruned”  trees  were  not  cut  or  treated  in  any  way 
except  for  the  removal  of  a few  suckers  which  developed  below 
the  bud.  Figure  i illustrates  Stump,  Row  lo.  Tree  2,  at  Vineland 
at  the  close  of  the  first  season’s  growth,  and  figure  3 illustrates 
Carman,  Row  20,  Tree  4. 

Upon  all  the  other  plots  an  attempt  was  made  to  have  several 
forms  of  trees  represented.  Where  a tree  naturally  formed  a 
head  6 inches  from  the  ground  it  was  allowed  to  do  so,  and  trees 
which  naturally  formed  heads  at  12,  18  or  24  inches  were  not 
greatly  modified.  Since  individual  records  are  kept  in  these 
experiments,  such  a practice  offers  more  opportunities  for  the 
study  of  pruning  than  would  he  the  case  if  an  attempt  was  made 
to  develop  the  heads  at  a uniform  height. 

In  a general  way  the  trees  in  the  “winter  pruned  and  not  cut 
back”  treatment  were  pruned  as  follows : Three  or  four  well 
placed  branches  were  selected,  whenever  possible,  to  form  the 
main  or  scaffold  framxCwork  of  each  tree.  All  small  side  branches 
lower  than  18  inches  from  the  ground  were  pruned  off.  Where 
the  side  branches  were  too  numerous  through  the  top  of  the  tree 
they  were  thinned  out.  An  attempt  was  made  to  have  this  prun- 
ing quite  similar  to  that  generally  followed  in  some  parts  of 
central  and  northern  New  Jersey  and  elsewhere. 

Figures  5 and  6 illustrate  Carman,  Row  17,  Tree  2,  at  Vine- 
land  before  and  after  pruning  in  1912-1913.  Figures  9 and  10 
illustrate  Elberta,  Row  18,  Tree  5,  before  and  after  pruning  in 
1912-1913.  This  is  an  example  of  a compact,  well  spread  tree 
which  requires  but  little  corrective  pruning.  Figures  13  and  14 
illustrate  Stump,  Row  16,  Tree  3,  from  which  a considerable 
amount  of  twig  growth  was  removed  from  the  lower  part  of  the 
trunk. 

The  “winter  cut  liack”  treatment  follows  the  preceding  plan  ' 
so  far  as  the  selection  of  the  scaffold  branches  and  the  removal 
of  small  side  branches  below  18  inches  from  the  ground  is  con- 
cerned. In  addition,  however,  all  side  and  main  branches  were 


Bulletin  326 


23 


cut  back  slightly,  preferably  just  above  an  outside  branch.  The 
object  is  to  make  the  tree  spread  to  keep  the  top  relatively  low, 
and  to  keep  the  center  of  the  tree  open.  Cutting  back  the 
branches  tends  also  to  stiffen  the  framework  of  the  tree. 

Figures  17  and  18  show  Stump,  Row  25,  Tree  3,  before  and 
after  pruning.  Two  or  three  relatively  large  side  branches  were 
removed  because  they  were  below  18  inches  from  the  ground. 

A Carman  tree.  Row  14,  Tree  5,  is  illustrated  before  and  after 
pruning  in  1912-1913,  in  figures  21  and  22.  The  tree  was  thin- 
ned by  removing  a number  of  twigs  and  the  remainder  were  cut 
back. 

The  “winter  and  summer”  and  the  “summer  only”  treatments 
were  pruned  in  the  same  fashion  as  the  “winter  cut  back”  at  this 
stage.  They  later  received  pruning  during  the  growing  season. 

Stump,  Row  lO;  Tree  4 (fig.  25  and  26),  is  selected  as  one  illus- 
tration of  the  pruning  of  a tree  in  this  treatment.  Two  Elberta 
trees  also  are  selected  to  illustrate  the  pruning  in  this  treatment, 
since  one.  Row  12,  Tree  4 (fig.  31  and  32)  was  pruned  so  as  to 
form  a single  short  trunk,  while  Row  24,  Tree  3 (fig.  37  and  38) 
was  pruned  so  as  to  allow  three  scaffold  branches  to  form  a few 
inches  from  the  ground.  Quite  similar  individuals  occur  in  the 
other  treatments,  so  that  observations  are  being  made  with  both 
types  of  trees,  as  previously  noted. 

To  illustrate  the  pruning  in  the  “summer  only”  treatment. 
Carman,  Row  8,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland  was  selected  (fig.  43  and 
44),  and  also  Elberta,  Row  4,  Tree  3 (fig.  50  and  51),  at  New 
Brunswick.  The  latter  tree  had  started  growth  slightly  before 
all  the  measurements  and  photographs  could  be  secured. 

SUMMER  PRUNING  AT  VINELAND  DURING  I913 

The  summer  pruning  in  1913  consisted  of  the  removal  of  all 
suckers  or  shoots  below  18  inches  on  the  trunk,  and  any  that 
tended  to  make  the  center  of  the  tree  too  dense.  This  pruning 
was  done  about  the  middle  of  June  and  the  leading  branches 
were  also  “tipped”  at  this  time  to  encourage  the  development  of* 
side  branches. 

The  trees  in  the  plots  to  receive  summer  pruning  only  were 
pruned  a second  time  in  September  when  growth  had  about 


24 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


ceased.  This  pruning  consisted  of  a thinning  out  and  a cutting 
back  similar  to  the  “winter  pruned  and  cut  back”  treatment  ex- 
cept that  it  was  done  in  the  fall.  Measurements  were  made  in 
linear  inches  of  twig  growth  removed  at  each  summer  pruning, 
and  the  results  appear  in  table  9. 


Tabi^e  9. 

Growth  Removed  in  Summer  Pruning 

ViNEEAND,  1913 


i SUMMER 

Plot  3 

WINTER  AND 
SUMMER 

Plot  4 

WINTER  AND 
SUMMER 

Plot  8 

SUMMER 

Plot  10 

Stump 

Carman 

Elberta 

Stump 

Carman 

Elberta 

Stump 

Carman 

Elberta 

Stump 

1 

Carman 

Elberta 

Row 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

22 

23 

24 

28 

29 

30 

Tree 

Inches  Inches  Inches 

Inches  Inches  Inches 

Inches  Inches  Inches 

Inches  Inches  Inches 

1 

1144 

1055 

1127 

1042 

902 

524 

1458 

1553 

1396 

896 

2 

1101 

2680 

1276 

984 

1341 

1464 

1823 

2636 

3469 

3132 

3 

1324 

1197 

1243 

733 

488 

855 

1056 

936 

2590 

1878 

1247 

4 

1105 

2314 

1333 

1347 

689 

’860 

1524 

933 

1069 

2935 

1880 

1528 

5 

1817 

2888 

1186 

1060 

835 

1182 

1338 

1555 

1079 

2194 

1810 

1575 

Average, 

1432 

1875 

1611 

1104 

749 

1021 

1265 

1502 

1227 

2589 

2249 

1871 

1 

1 

1658 

945 

1331 

2238 

Tn  the  “summer  pruned  only”  treatment  an  average  of  2093 
inches  was  removed  from  the  Stump  trees,  2067  inches  from  the 
Carman  and  1741  from  the  Elberta.  In  the  “summer  and 
winter”  treatment  only,  the  June  summer  pruning  was  practiced 
and  an  average  of  1184  inches  was  removed  from  each  Stump 
tree,  1126  inches  from  Carman  and  1158  inches  from  Elberta. 

The  average  amount  of  growth  removed  per  tree  per  plot  in 
the  “summer  only”  treatment  was  1658  inches  on  Plot  3 and 
2238  inches  on  Plot  10,  or  a general  average  of  1961  inches. 

The  average  amount  of  growth  removed  per  tree  per  plot  in 
the  summer  pruning  of  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatment  was 
945  inches  on  Plot  4 and  1331  inches  on  Plot  8,  or  a general 
average  of  1156  inches. 


BuIvIvETIN  326 


25 


SUMMER  PRUNING  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK  DURING  I913 

The  summer  pruning  at  New  Brunswick  was  similar  to  the 
work  at  Vineland,  and  a tabulation  of  the  linear  inches  of  twig 
growth  removed  is  shown  in  table  10. 


Table  10 

Growth  Removed  in  Summer  Pruning 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


treatment 

VARIETY 

Tree 

Row  3 

Row  4 

Row  6 

Row  7 

1 

Winter  and 
Summer 

Summer 

Winter  and 
Summer 

Summer 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta 

1 

670 

1046 

430 

907 

2 

357 

1235 

654 

1426 

3 

136 

1639 

450 

365 

A vprngp  

488 

1307 

511 

899 

Stump 

4 

705 

1236 

1101 

779 

5 

594 

1559 

406 

681 

Avprngp  

650 

1398 

502 

730 

Carman 

6 

600 

615 

878 

690 

7 

339 

1067 

622 

487 

8 

.346 

1053 

248 

776 

Average,  

428 

912 

583 

651 

All 

Average,  

506 

1181 

599 

764 

In  the  ‘‘summer  only”  treatment,  an  average  of  1103  inches 
of  growth  was  removed  from  the  Elberta  trees,  1064  from  the 
Stump  trees  and  781  from  the  Carman  trees.  In  the  “summer 
and  winter”  treatments,  the  amounts  of  twig  growth  removed  in 
June  averaged  50O'  inches  for  Elberta,  702  inches  for  Stump  and 
506  inches  for  Carman. 

The  treatment  average  per  tree  for  all  varieties  was  973  inches 
in  the  case  of  the  “summer  only”  treatment  and  5.52  inches  in  the 
case  of  the  “summer  and  winter”  treatment.  The  first  average 
is  988  inches  below  the  corresponding  average  for  the  Vineland 
trees  and  the  second  is  604  inches  below. 


26 


Pruning  Expe:rime:nts  With  Peaches 


ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  PRUNING  IN  SUMMER 

Photographs  were  taken  to  show  the  character  of  the  pruning 
in  the  summer  of  1913. 

The  pruning  of  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatment,  which 
was  performed  in  June,  1913,  is  illustrated  first  by  Stump,  Row 
10,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland,  shown  in  figures  27  and  28.  In  the  case 
of  this  tree,  the  shoots  were  removed  from  the  trunk  and  scaffold 
branches  to  a height  of  about  24  inches  above  the  ground,  and  a 
considerable  amount  of  thinning  was  done,  the  amount  pruned 
off  being  1347  inches.  Elberta,  Row  12,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland,  also 
is  shown  in  figures  33  and  34.  In  this  case  also,  the  shoots  were 
removed  from  the  trunk  to  a height  of  about  24  inches,  but  the 
amount  of  thinning  required  was  less,  860  inches  being  removed. 
The  pruning  of  Elberta,  Row  24,  Tree  3,  at  Vineland,  is  illus- 
trated in  figures  39  and  40.  Here  936  inches  of  twig  growth 
were  removed,  the  effect  upon  the  top  being  quite  perceptible. 

Trees  receiving  the  “summer  only”  treatment  were  pruned 
twice  during  the  growing  season.  Figures  45  and  46  illustrate  the 
appearance  of  a Carman  tree.  Row  8,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland,  before 
and  after  pruning  in  June,  1913.  The  same  tree  before  and  after 
pruning,  in  October,  1913,  is  shown  in  figures  47  and  48.  The 
tree  was  about  to  lose  its  leaves  at  the  time  the  latter  pruning 
was  performed.  An  Elberta  tree.  Row  4,  Tree  3,  at  New  Bruns- 
wick, before  and  after  pruning  in  June,  1913,  is  shown  in  figures 
52  and  53.  The  same  tree  before  and  after  pruning  in  October, 
1913,  is  shown  in  figures  54  and  55.  On  this  tree  also,  the  leaves 
were  about  to  fall  at  the  time  of  pruning. 

TWIG  GROWTH  MADE  DURING  I913  AT  VINELAND 

At  the  close  of  the  season’s  growth  in  1913,  measurements 
were  again  made  of  the  total  linear  twig  growth.  These  results 
are  given  in  table  ii.  The  growth  removed  by  summer  pruning 
is,  of  course,  included  in  the  averages  of  total  growth.  The 
average  growth  of  each  tree,  regardless  of  variety  and  treatment, 
was  3981  inches.  There  were  55  individual  trees  above  this 
average  and  55  below  it. 


BuIvIvETIN  326 


27 


The  Stump  made  the  greatest  average  growth  of  the  three 
varieties  under  comparison  with  an  average  of  4258  inches. 
Carman  was  second  with  an  average  of  4026  inches,  and  Elberta 
was  third  with  3608  inches.  There  were  19  Stump  trees  above 
the  average  for  the  variety  and  19  below;  19  Carman  trees  above 
the  average  for  the  variety  and  20  below;  and  14  Elberta  trees 
above  the  average  for  the  variety  and  19  below. 


Tabi^e  II 

Measurement  oe  Twig  Growth 
ViNEEAND,  1913 


PRUNING 

TREATMENT 

Row 

Variety 

*Tree  1 

Tree  2 

Tree  3 

Tree  4 

Tree  5 

Average 

Not 

1 

Stump 

Inches 

5172 

Inches 

3175 

1 

1 Inches 
2302 

Inches 

5014 

Inches 

2827 

Inches 

3330 

pruned 

' 2 

Carman,  

5728 

1 2569 

2627 

1571 

3124 

3 

Elberta 

1808 

4141 

1 3002 

3572 

Winter 

4 

1 Stump,  

4739 

2110 

3780 

3543 

not  cut 

i 5 

Carman,  

.3510 

4721 

2781 

3775 

3637 

3729 

back 

6 

Elberta 

3076 

1466 

4208 

2746 

2874 

Summer 

7 

Stump 

2731 

3623 

3793 

3382 

only 

8 

Caiman,  

2113 

3547 

2715 

5543 

5578 

4346 

9 

Elberta 

2295 

4844 

2233 

3324 

2396 

3199 

Winter 

10 

Stump 

3912 

4240- 

2832 

6288 

4026 

4347 

and 

11 

Carman 

3862 

4213 

2653 

4144 

3825 

3709 

summer 

12 

Elberta 

1926 

3481 

3027 

3254 

Winter 

13 

Stump,  

2621 

4925 

3431 

4586 

4559 

4375 

cut 

14 

Carman 

3825 

5137 

2676 

3879 

back 

15 

Elberta,  

3343 

2665 

3956 

2558 

3131 

Winter 

16 

Stump 

2947 

4707 

4960 

5578 

3737 

4796 

not  cut 

17 

Carman,  

5060 

2603 

2499 

1045 

2802 

back 

18 

Elberta,  

ieii 

4931 

2315 

2498 

3248 

Not 

19 

Stump,  

1 

2489 

1 

5507 

4267 

5061 

3682 

4629 

pruned 

20 

Carman,  

1652 

5331 

2929 

5088 

4515 

4466 

21 

Elberta 

5258 

3249 

4254 

Winter 

22 

Stump,  

2808 

5530 

3428 

4010 

4177 

4286 

and 

23 

Carman,  

Elberta 

5410 

3182 

3539 

3714 

3961 

summer 

24 

3410 

4514 

4235 

4402 

4166 

4329 

Winter- 

25 

Stump,  

3825 

4511 

2964 

7108 

3618 

4550 

cut 

26 

Carman,  

3307 

6088 

4189 

5657 

4592 

5132 

back 

27 

Elberta 

3833 

4819 

1885 

3350 

5311 

3841 

Summer 

28 

Stump 

3171 

5046 

4899 

5233 

4603 

4945 

only 

29 

Carman 

3506 

6883 

3922 

5480 

4010 

5074 

30 

! 

Elberta 

1 1 

2409 

1 1 

6746 

1 

2810 

3530 

4570 

4414 

* Tree  1 In  each  row  is  not  included  in  the  averages  for  the  rows. 


The  largest  Stump  tree  in  1913  was  Row  25,  Tree  4,  with  a 
total  of  7108  inches.  This  is  also  the  largest  tree  of  any  variety. 
The  poorest  Stump  tree  was  Row  4,  Tree  3,  with  a total  of  2110 
inches. 


28 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


The  largest  Carman  tree  was  Row  29,  Tree  2,  with  a total  of 
6883  inches,  and  the  poorest  Carman  tree  was  Row  17,  Tree  5, 
with  a total  of  1045  ii^ches.  This  was  also  the  smallest  tree  of 
the  lot. 

The  largest  Elberta  was  Row  30,  Tree  2,  with  a total  of  6746 
inches,  and  the  poorest.  Row  6,  Tree  3,  with  a total  of  1466 
inches. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  only  one  tree  of  those  mentioned 
as  making  either  the  greatest  or  the  poorest  growth  for  the 
variety  in  1913  appeared  in  a similar  list  for  1912.  The  tree 
is  Tree  4,  Row  25,  and  is  a Stump.  All  the  trees  in  the  experi- 
ment made  an  average  gain  over  that  of  1912  of  3243  inches,  or 
433  per  cent.  The  Stump  trees  made  an  average  gain  in  growth 
during  1913  of  3458  inches,  the  Carman  trees  3277  inches,  and 
the  Elberta  trees  2925  inches. 


Growth  hy  Plots  Arranged  According  to  future  Treatments 

In  table  12  is  shown  the  average  twig  growth  made  by  the 
trees  according  to  future  treatment. 


Table  12 

Growth  oe  Plots  According  to  Future  Treatments 
Vineland,  1913 


Not  I’nined 

Winter  Not 
Cut  Back 

Summer  | 

1 

VARIETY 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

j Number  Trees 
! 

Average  Per  i 

Tree  ’ 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

All 1 

1 10  3296 

2 11  .3367 

3 11  3666 

7 10  4489 

0 11  3649 

10  12  4811 

20  3892 

22  3522 

2.3  4263 

Stump,  . . 

1 4 3330 

2 .3  .354.3 

3 .3  3382 

7 4 4630 

6 4 4796 

10  4 4945 

8 3980 

7 4259 

7 4285 

Carman, 

1 1 4 3124 

2 4 3429 

.3  4 4346 

7 4 4466 

0 4 2802 

10  4 5074 

8 3795 

8 .3265 

8 4710 

Elberta, 

1 2 3.572 

2 4 2874 

.3  4 .3199 

7 2 42.54 

0 3 3248 

10  4 4414 

1 4 .3913 

1 

7 3034  1 8 .3807 

1 1 

Winter  and 
Summer 

Winter  Cut 
Back 

All 

Treatments 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Plot 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Number  Trees 

Average  Per 

Tree 

Inches 

1 

1 Inches 

Inches 

4 10  3873 

1 5 11  3787 

8 12  4192 

9 12  4508 

22  4047 

23  4168 

no 

3981 

4 4 4.347 

0 4 4 .3  ( .5 

1 

1 

8 4 4286 

9 4 4550 

8 4316 

8 446.3 

38 

4258 

4 4 3709 

5 3 .3876 

1 

8 4 3961 

9 4 51.32 

8 3835 

7 4595 

39 

4026 

4 2 3254 

5 4 3131 

1 

8 4 4.329 

9 4 3841 

6 3971 

8 3486 

3.3 

3608 

I’ULLETIN  326  29 

The  rank  of  the  various  treatments  in  1912  and  1913  is  com- 
pared in  table  13. 


Tabce  13 

Growth  of  the  Various  Treatments  for  1912  and  1913  Compared 
According  to  Rank 


1 

VAKIETY  1 

1 1 

All  1 Stump  1 

1 1 

Carman 

Elberta 

TREATMENT 

1912  1913  1 1912  1913 

1 

1912  1913 

1912  1913 

Not  priinod 

1 

4 4 1 5 5 

1 5 5 1 4 4 

12  2 12  1 

1 3 1 3 2 1 

3 1 1 1 3 

1 i 

3 4 

5 5 

2 2 

4 3 

1 1 1 

‘ 

4 2 

5 5 

2 4 

1 1 

3 3 

Wintoi'  not  ent  back,  

Winter  cut  back  

Winter  and  puinnier,  1 

Summer,  I 

1 

It  will  be  noted  that  where  all  varieties  are  considered  the 
ranking  is  the  same  for  both  years,  except  that  the  placing  of 
“winter  and  summer”  and  “summer”  is  reversed.  The  placing 
of  the  “winter  not  cut  back”  and  the  “not  pruned”  treatments 
of  the  variety  Stump ; of  the  “summer,”  “winter  cut  back,”  and 
“winter  not  cut  back”  treatments  of  the  variety  Carman;  and 
of  the  “winter  and  summer,”  “summer”  and  “winter  not  cut 
back”  treatments  of  the  variety  Elberta,  is  consistent. 


Comparisons  on  Basis  of  Per  Cent  Gain  in  Tzvig  Grozjeth  Over 

that  of  Ip  1 2 

A comparison  between  trees  or  treatments  upon  the  basis  of 
total  growth  indicates  the  relative  size  of  the  trees,  yet  it  may 
not  correctly  indicate  the  rate  of  growth  made  by  these  trees. 
A comparison  upon  the  basis  of  per  cent  gain  in  growth  during 
1913  over  that  made  in  1912  does  this,  however.  While  the 
varieties  ranked  : i — Stump,  2 — Carman  and  3 — Elberta,  ac- 
cording to  average  total  twig  growth,  the  rank  according  to  per 
cent  gain  in  growth  was:  i — Carman  (437  per  cent),  2 — 
Stump  (432  per  cent),  and  3 — Elberta  (428  per  cent).  The  per 
cent  gain  in  growth  for  each  tree  is  given  in  table  14. 


01 

0\ 

Oi 

w 

> 

o 

rO 

On 


> 

< 

(/i 

W 

W 

< 

D 

Q 


Oh 


' mccan 

' -t<  O GO 

, -fi  10  GO 


2 O <N 
S GO  OJ  b- 
71  GO  tH  no 


GO  in  ^- 
c^l  OT  I- 
GO  GO  GO 


00  -t  It  t-  O SNl 

GO  b-  CO  in  GO 

in  in  -f  GO  Tfi 


<N  CO  m 

t-  l-  GO 

un  in 


O LO  GO 

in  in  C5 

Tf  -b  GO 


^ C c: 
^ CO  LO 


5 CO  I' t-  CO  t-  LO  i-  X CO 


t-  CO 
O LO 
GO  b-  04 
rt1  GO  GO 


C5  th  cn 

^ GO  in 

o t-  CO 


in  CO  ^ 

GO 

GO  X >-1 
-t  GO  GO 


CD  m no 

X 04 

CO  no  in 


CO  04  X 


CO  -fi  04  04 


CO  CO  O 
X I-  t- 
CD  t-  CO 


04  ~r  CO  04  no  C 


o o:  -7 
<D  CO  iH 
^ 04  tH 


o:  04  I- 


X O X 04  X C 04  04  r- 

--^0  4-  in  X t-i  c -b  CD 

-b  X X -b  X m GO  04  X 


' X -b  -b  in 


X X X in  4-  X.  X X t-  nn  X 04  in  x 4-  -r  x x 04 . 

4-  X 04  04  04  in  4-  in  X -b  05  X T-J  X 4-  T-  X t-i  X ' 

in  X XXX  nn  X nn  4-  c xi  x nn  04  i-  r-  x nn  ; 

Ln04  -bGOX  'b04O4  GO  ,-04  X-bX  -bX-b  X*bl 


I ‘cj: 


0 4-4-  • 4-  X 


X GO  in  4-  X • X X 
X nn  X nn  04  • in  S 


nn  X -b  X in  X 04  X 

in  X X in  X X x x x 

XXO  04  XX  XXX 


'7X4-  C04X  XX-b 

XXr-  T-XX  x-7<x 

-b-bX  -bX-b  XXX 


C X 04  X 4-  O XXO 

,7  X X X X in  XXX 

C X -b  ,7  50  X 04  -7  X 

-bX*7  47  XX  XXX 


X4-X  04 -bX  04X-b 
04  X ,7  x,  4-  X X X X 
4-  CO  4-  GO  ,7  CO  04  4-  X 


O -b  X X 04  04  X -7  ,7 

Cj-bX,7  XX-b  GO  -7 

4-  t7  04  04  X 04  04  X 


£ 04  X 04  O n!  x t7  X go  04  x 

-XXO  rbXX  X^X  XX 

7;  X X X ,7  4-  -7  t-  I-  X X X 

004  04  X 04O4rH  04  04  X X04 


O X X 4-  X X ,7  4-  X -7  XX 

•o  I-  X X GO  X X r-  rb  4-  X.  X 

0 04  X X X -7  -b  XX  I-  X X 


X X 4-  in  X rb  XX-  X 47  X X X bb  X 04  X 

04  XX  t-OX  -7X  • XOX  X’bX  XX^b 

-bXX  XXX  4-4--  X-bX  04  X 04  XX-b 


,7  X X n X X 4-  X • X 04  X -7  X X X 04  O 


4-  4-  4-  GO  X 


■ GO  X XX 


£ O X tH  CT.  »-h  • t-  -f  C CO 

t-  C-J  -t^  CO  ou-  • -r  t -V  ^ 

C-  I-  — I t-  I-  C • JO  X 01  01 


r-  ^ GO 
O CO  10 
1.0  CO  OI 


CO  Q C:  CO  C CO  X t-  ■ 


X O CO  CO'  CD 


ggs 


^ JO  ^ C CO  CO 
X X X n 4^ 


XX  4- XX  CbbO)  X-bX  X4-X  XCbb  04  GO-7  XXI-  XXO 
1 . -1  I ..  ^ ^ ^ rb  bb  rb  57  bb  bb  bb  04  04  04  ol  04  04  04  04  04  0^  X 


Per  cent  gain  is  computed  on  a basis  of  totals  and  not  averages. 


Bulletin  326 

Gain  in  Tzvig  GrozvtJi  by  Treatments  at  Vineland 


3 


The  tabulation  of  the  average  twig  growth  in  1912,  average 
twig  growth  in  1913,  and  per  cent  gain  in  1913  according  to 
treatments  appears  in  table  15. 


Table  15 

Per  Cent  Gain  in  Twig  Growth  by  Treatments 
Vineland 


VARIETY 

All 

Stump 

Carman 

Elberta 

TREATMENT 

1912 

Growth 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

Growth 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

Growth 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

Growth 

1913 

Gain 

Inches 

. Inches 

Per 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per 

Cent 

Inches 

1 Inches 

Per 

Cent 

Inches 

i Inches 

Per 

Cent 

All,  

' 747 

3980 

433 

800 

4258 

432 

750 

4027 

437 

683 

3608 

428 

Not  Primed,  . . 

709 

3892 

449 

05() 

3979 

512 

771 

3795 

392 

703 

3913 

457 

Winter  Not 

Cut  Back,  .. 

' 676 

3508 

419 

774 

4259 

450 

690 

3265 

373 

562 

3034 

440 

Summer 

772 

4262 

452 

873 

4275  ■ 

• 389 

797 

4710 

491 

660 

3807 

477 

Summer  and 
Winter 

790 

4047 

412 

845 

4316 

411 

722 

3835 

431 

806 

3971 

393 

Winter  Cut 
Back,  

1 

7S4 

4163 

431 

864 

4463 

416 

774 

4595 

494 

712 

3486 

390 

It  may  be  noted  that  while  the  “not  pruned”  Stump  made  the 
poorest  average  twig  growth  for  the  season,  yet  it  ranked  first 
in  per  cent  gain,  which  will  definitely  indicate  the  value  of  a 
comparison  upon  this  basis. 

TWIG  GROWTH  MADE  DURING  I913  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK 

With  the  close  of  the  season’s  growth  in  1913,  the  linear  twig 
growth  was  measured,  as  given  in  table  16.  As  in  the  Vineland 
measurements,  the  amount  of  twig  growth  that  was  pruned  off 
during  the  summer  is  included  in  the  total  growth.  Disregarding 
variety,  the  average  twig  growth  per  tree  made  during  the  season 
was  3035  inches,  which  is  946  inches  less  than  a similar  average 
at  Vineland.  There  were  29  trees  above  and  42  trees  below  this 
average. 

The  tree  making  the  greatest  amount  of  twig  growth  in  this 
season  was  a Carman,  Row  i.  Tree  6,  with  a total  growth  of  5355 
inches.  The  lowest  Carman,  Row  3,  Tree  7,  made  a growth  of 
1734  inches.  The  average  growth  for  all  trees  of  this  variety 


32 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


was  3023  inches,  of  which  there  were  ii  trees  above  and  16 
below  the  average. 

An  Elberta,  Row  5,  Tree  2,  made  the  lowest  amount  of  twig 
growth,  1470  inches  for  all  varieties.  The  best  Elberta  was 
Row  8,  Tree  3,  which  made  a total  growth  of  4425  inches.  The 
average  for  this  variety  was  2971  inches,  and  12  trees  were  above 
the  average,  while  15  were  below. 


^ Tabce  16 

Measurement  oe  Twig  Growth 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


Row  1 

Row  2 

CO 

0 

1 

1 Row  4 

1 

1 Row  5 

1 

1 

1 Row  6 

1 1 

1 

1 Row  7| 

Row  8 

Row  9 

All 

Plots 

VARIETY 

! 

1 ! 

f "^"1 

1 

1 

1 

All 

NP 

WNCB 

w & s 

s 

WCB 

|w  & S 

S 

WNCB 

WCB 

Treat- 

1 

1 

ments 

i 

Inches 

1 Inches 

1 Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1 Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta,  

I 

32S4 

2774 

3042 

3077 

2639 

2513 

2971 

4060 

4274 

2 

2337 

3002 

2205 

3224 

1470 

3141 

4107 

4347 

2539 

.3 

1965 

2222 

3276 

2472 

2347 

2886 

4425 

2624 

4 

2939 

Average,  . . . i 

•••i 

2811 

2685 

2490 

3192 

2194 

2667 

3321  1 

4277 

3149 

2971 

Stump 

4 

4720 

.3034 

2991 

1684 

4120 

8248 

2632 

2709 

3 

3575 

21,30 

2774 

1 

3302 

2944 

2710 

3097 

2931 

5020 

Average,  . . . 

...i 

4151  1 

1 

2130  1 

i 1 

2904  1 

1 

3147  1 

2.314  1 

3415 

I 

3173 

1 

2782 

3865 

3155 

Carman 

- 1 

1 

5355 

1796  ■ 

1 

2495  1 

2027 

3594  1 

1 

1 3488  1 

1 

3717 

3854 

2831 

1 4070 

.3013 

1734 

1 3005 

3000  ' 

2407 

1 2818 

1 3869 

4312 

! 1 

1 

3100 

2052 

3051  1 

2020 

2248  1 

2064 

3506 

2648 

2350 

Average,  . . . 

1 

• ••1 

4375 

1 

1 

•2287 

2427 

2551 

1 

2947 

1 2653 

1 

1 3347 

1 

3457 

3164 

3023 

All 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Average,  . . . 

3804 

2400 

2570  1 

2940 

2.506  1 

2849  1 

3294 

3596 

3332 

3035 

1 


Of  the  variety  Stump,  Row  9,  Tree  5,  made  the  best  growth 
with  a total  of  5020  inches.  Row  5,  Tree  4,  was  lowest  with  1684 
inches.  The  average  for  the  variety  was  3155  inches,  6 trees 
being  above  and  1 1 below  the  average. 

Only  one  tree  in  the  above  list  maintains  its  rank  within  the 
variety  held  in  the  previous  year.  This  is  an  Elberta,  Row  8, 
Tree  3,  which  had  the  greatest  amount  of  twig  growth  for  the 
variety,  both  in  1912  and  1913. 

'idle  trees  in  the  Vineland  experiment  made  an  average  of 
946  inches  more  growth  per  tree  during  1913  than  the  trees  in 
the  New  Prunswick  exjieriment.  The  high  tree  in  each  variety 


IUjllKTin  326 


33 


at  Vineland  made  over  looo^  inches  more  groAvth  than  the  high 
trees  of  the  same  varieties  at  New  Brunswick.  Of  the  low  trees, 
the  low  Stump  at  Vineland  was  426  inches  better  than  the  low 
Stump  at  New  Brunswick;  hut  the  low  Elbertas  had  about  the 
same  growth  in  both  experiments,  while  the  low  Carman  at  New 
Brunswick  was  about  700'  inches  better  than  the  low  Carman 
at  Vineland.  In  all  cases,  however,  the  variety  average  was 
better  by  about  1000  inches  at  Vineland  than  at  New  Brunswick. 


Comparison  of  Total  Growth  on' the  Basis  of  Treatment 


Table  17 

Measurements  oe  Twig  Growth  by  Treatments 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


VARIETY 

Not 

Pruned 

Winter 
Not  Cut 
Back 

Winter 

Cut 

Back 

Winter 

and 

Summer 

Summer 

All 

Elberta,  

2811 

3510 

2670 

2578 

3257 

2971 

Stump,  

4151  1 

2564 

3089 

3160 

3160 

3155 

Carman,  

4.375 

2872 

3056 

2540 

2949 

3023 

All,  

3864 

3031 

! 

2919 

1.  . 

2709 

3117 

3035 

.V  comparison  of  the  average  twig  growth  on  the  basis  of 
treatment  regardless  of  variety  (table  17)  shows  the  following- 
ranking  : 


Inches 


1.  Not  pruned,  3864 

2.  Summer  only,  3117 

3.  Winter  not  cut  back,  3031 

4.  Winter  cut  back,  2919 

5.  Winter  and  summer,  2709 


Compared  with  the  ranking  in  1912,  the  ‘hiot  pruned”  and 
'Svinter  and  summer”  treatments  occupy  the  same  positions,  but 
the  “summer  only”  treatment  has  advanced  from  fourth  place  to 
second  place,  forcing  “winter  not  cut  back”  from  second  to  third 
place  and  “winter  cut  back”  from  third  to  fourth  place. 

When  considered  with  respect  to  variety,  the  “not  pruned” 
treatment  ranks  first  with  Stump  and  Carman,  and  third  with 
Elberta;  “winter  not  cut  back”  ranks  first  with  Elberta,  but 
fourth  and  fifth  with  Carman  and  Stump,  respectively;  winter 
cut  back”  ranks  second  with  Carman  and  fourth  with  both 


34 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Elberta  and  Stump;  ‘'winter  and  summer”  is  tied  with  “sum- 
mer” for  second  place  with  Stump,  but  ranks  fifth  with  both 
Carman  and  Elberta;  and  “summer  only”  is  second  with  Elberta 
and  third  with  Carman. 

A comparison  of  the  ranking  of  the  1912  growth  with  the  1913 
growth  shows  that  with  Stump  no  one  treatment  maintains  its 


Table  18.  Per  Cent  Gain  in  Twig  Growth 


VARIETY 

i 

Tree  Number 

Row  1_ 

Row  2 

Row  3 

Row  4 

NP 

WNCB 

W & S 

S 

1912 

1913 

Galu 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Inches 

Inches  Cent 

Inches 

Inches  Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches  Cent 

Elberta,  

1 

341 

3284 

863 

246 

2774 

1026 

433 

3042 

602 

206 

3077 

1394 

2 

750 

2337 

212 

400 

3062 

666 

250 

2205 

782 

333 

3224  ' 

868 

3 

132 

1965 

1388 

186 

2222 

1094 

119 

3276 

2653 

4 

427 

2939 

588 

Average,  

546 

2811 

415 

301 

2685 

791 

290 

2490 

760 

219 

3192 

1355 

Stump,  

4 

625 

4726 

658 

757 

3034 

301 

418 

2991 

616 

5 

490 

3575 

630 

486 

2130 

352 

314 

2774 

784 

353 

3302 

836 

Average  

558 

4151 

644 

486 

2130 

352 

536 

2904 

444 

386 

3147 

716 

Carman,  

6 

108 

1796 

1563 

427 

2495 

484 

438 

2027 

363 

7 

170 

4670 

2647 

190 

3013 

1485 

160 

1734 

984 

532 

3005 

465 

8 

474 

3100 

554 

314 

2052 

554 

334 

3051 

814 

528 

2620 

396 

Av6r<i^0,  

322 

3885 

1107 

204 

2287 

1019 

307 

2427 

690 

499 

2551 

411 

All  Average,  

475 

3615 

661 

288 

2466 

756 

358 

2570 

619 

366 

2940 

704 

rank.  In  the  case  of  Carman,  the  “winter  and  summer”  treat- 
ment ranked  fifth  in  both  in  1912  and  1913.  With  Elberta,  the 
“winter  cut  hack”  treatment  ranked  fourth  in  both  years. 


Comparisons  on  the  Basis  of  Per  Cent  Gain  in  Twig  Growth 
Over  that  of  1Q12 

The  data  secured  at  New  Brunswick  seem  to  support  the  state- 
ment previously  made  f]iage  29)  that  a comparison  1)etween 


BuLIvETIN  326 


35 


trees  on  a basis  of  total  growth  indicates  the  size  of  the  tree,  but 
may  not  correctly  indicate  the  rate  of  growth  made  by  these 
trees  in  proportion  to  their  vigor  at  the  beginning. 

According  to  the  average  twig  growth  made  in  1913,  Stump 
ranks  first,  Carman  second,  and  Elberta  third.  When  this  is 


AT  New  Brunswick,  1913  Over  1912 


Row  5 

Row  6 

Row  7 

Row  8 

Row  9 

All  Rows 

WCB 

W & S 

S 

WNCB 

WCB 

All 

Treatments 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Inches 

Inches  Cent 

Inches  Inches  Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches  Inches  Cent 

162 

2639 

1528 

108 

2513 

2227 

330 

2971 

800 

338 

4060 

1110 

261 

4274 

1537 

627 

1470 

134 

633 

3141 

396 

267 

4107 

1438 

493 

4347 

782 

528 

2539 

381 

262 

2472 

844 

444 

2347 

429 

338 

2886 

754 

797 

4425 

455 

156 

2624 

1581 

350 

2194 

526 

! 395 

2667 

575 

312 

3321 

966 

543 

4277 

689 

315 

3149 

899 

354 

2971 

739 

747 

1684 

125 

924 

4120 

346 

649 

3248 

401 

653 

2632 

303 

1239 

2709 

119 

606 

2944 

386 

812 

2710 

234 

463 

3097 

569 

484 

2931 

506 

324 

5020 

1449 

677 

2314 

239 

868 

3415 

293 

556 

3173 

470 

569 

2782 

389 

782 

3865 

395 

609 

3154 

417 

519 

3594 

592 

318 

3488 

997 

998 

3717 

272 

484 

3854 

696 

295 

2831 

856 

214 

3000 

1301  ‘ 

324 

2407 

643 

508 

2818 

455 

624 

3869 

520 

306 

4312 

1309 

334 

2248 

573 

270 

2064 

664 

310 

3506 

1030 

540 

2648 

404 

680 

2350 

246  1 

356 

2947 

726  . 

304 

2653 

773 

605 

3347 

453 

549 

3457 

530 

427 

3164 

641 

4^0 

2933 

634 

434 

2506 

478  I 

479 

2849 

495 

483 

3294 

1 

582 

552 

3596 

554 

474 

3332 

604 

1 

433 

3002 

594 

considered  on  the  basis  of  gain  in  growth,  Elberta  ranks  first 
with  a gain  of  739  per  cent,  Carman  second  with  634  per  cent, 
and  Stump  third  with  417  per  cent.  Table  18  shows  the  per  cent 
gain  made  by  each  tree  and  the  average  per  cent  gain  for  each 
variety,  all  varieties,  and  for  each  row  for  each  variety  and  all 
varieties. 


3^ 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Gain  in  Tnng  Grozuth  According  to  Treatments 


The  per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth  according  to  treatments  is 
given  in  table  19. 

Tabce  19 

Per  Cent  Gain  in  Twig  Growth  According  to  Treatments 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


variety 

, 1 

Not 

Priineil 

1 

1,  1 

Winter 

1 Not  Cut 

1 Back 

1 1 

1 Winter 

1 Cut 

Back 

1 

Winter 

and 

Summer 

Summer  | 

1 All 

i 

Elberta 

Stump,  1 

Carman,  ' 

All 

1 

Per  cent 
415 

644 

1107 

661 

1 

Per  cent 
732 

374 

662 

622 

1 

Per  cent  | Per  cent 
702  1 653 

324  1 350 

681  1 732 

544  591 

Per  cent 
692 

572 

434 

634 

1 

Per  cent 
739 

417 

634 

594 

The  ranking  on  this  basis  is  as  follows : 


Aee 


Eeberta 


Stump 


1 Not  pruned  Winter  not  cut  Not  pruned 

back 

2 Summer  Winter  cut  back  Summer 


Carman 
Not  pruned 


Winter  and  sum- 
mer 

3 Winter  not  cut  Summer  Winter  not  cut  Winter  cut  back 

liack  back 

4 Winter  and  Winter  and  sum-  Winter  and  sum-  Winter  not  cut 

summer  mer  mer  back 

5 Winter  cut  Not  pruned  Winter  cut  back  Summer 

back 


A COMPARISON  OF  THE  GROWTH  MADE  BY  TREES  OF 
VARYING  VIGOR 

In  making  extensive  observations  of  tree  growth  at  this 
station,  it  has  appeared  that  trees  that  make  a relatively  small 
growth  during  the  first  season  make  a relatively  large  gain  in 
growth  during  the  following  season,  if  growing  conditions  are 
etjually  favorable  to  all  trees.  The  measurements  of  growth 
made  in  these  experiments  have  furnished  additional  data  upon 
this  point. 

At  the  close  of  the  first  summer’s  growth  after  the  trees  are 
planted,  there  is  commonly  a considerable  variation  in  size,  or 
really  in  the  amount  of  twig  growth  made,  even  though  the 
trees  were  all  of  about  the  same  caliper  and  vigor  at  the  time  of 


Bulletin  326 


37 


planting.  These  differences  ncciir  as  a result  of  several  factors. 
Some  individual  trees  may  have  lost  a larger  proportion  of  their 
root-systems  when  dng  from  the  nursery  row ; some  may  have 
become  partially  dried  out  previous  to  planting*;  and  still  others 
may  not  have  been  set  quite  so  well.  The  soil,  too,  is  far  from 
being  uniform  in  fertility,  water-holding  capacity,  and  depth  of 
surface  soil,  over  any  considerable  area,  so  that  some  individual 
trees  find  exceptionally  good  conditions,  while  others  are  sul)- 
jected  to  more  or  less  unfavorable  factors.  There  is  the  possi- 
bility, too,  that  some  individuals  may  inherit  greater  vigor  than 
others. 


Tabce  20 


Per  Cent  in  Twig  Growth  Made  by  Trees  Above  and  Beeow  the  Average 
EOR  the  Variety  in  1912 — Vineeand,  1913 


i 

1 

BELOW  AVERAGE 

ABOVE 

AVERAGE 

variety 

1 

No.of| 
Trees  | 

1 

1 

Growth  1 
1912  1 

i 

Growth 

1913 

1 

1 

1 Gain 

1 

1 No.  of  1 

1 Trees  | 

1 1 

Growth 

1912 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Growth 

1913 

1 

1 

1 Gain 

1 

stump,  

1 

1 

20  1 

1 

Inches 
642  1 

Inches 

3873 

1 

1 Per  cent 
1 504 

1 1 

1 IS  1 

Inches 

976 

1 

1 

1 

Inches 
4675  1 

|Per  cent 
379 

Carman,  

21  1 

577  1 

3509 

1 508 

1 IS  1 

953 

1 

4629 

1 386 

Elberta,  

18 

549  1 

3066 

458 

1 1^">  1 

844 

1 

4258 

1 404 

All 

62  1 

1 

5i)l  1 

1 

3563 

1 503 

1 

1 48  1 

1 1 

949 

1 

1 

4516 

1 376 

1 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  environmental  factors  tend  to^  cause 
marked  differences  in  growth,  especially  the  first  season  after  the 
trees  have  been  transplanted.  Since  these  differences  occur  gen- 
erally, it  is  of  interest  to  determine,  as  far  as  possible,  the  degree 
and  relative  importance  of  these  differences  in  the  development 
of  the  orchard.  A somewhat  general  comparison  may  be  made 
between  trees  above  and  below  the  general  average  of  the  entire 
orchard.  Table  20  shows  the  average  growth  in  1912  and  in 
1913,  and  the  per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth  for  trees  that  were 
above  and  below  the  average  amount  of  twig  growth  at  Vineland 
in  1912.  It  will  be  noted  that  although  the  trees  above  the  aver- 
age in  1912  made  the  larger  amount  of  twig  growdh  in  1913  by 
an  average  or  nearly  1000  inches,  the  per  cent  gain  in  twig 
growth  was  more  than  100  per  cent  in  favor  of  those  below  the 
average. 


38 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


The  results  at  New  Brunswick  are  even  more  striking,  as 
shown  in  talkie  21.  The  trees  that  were  l3elow  the  average  in 
1912  made  almost  as  much  average  growth  in  1913  as  the  trees 
that  were  above  the  average,  the  difference  being  only  about 
100  inches.  The  average  per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth  of  the 
trees  below  the  average  was  more  than  200  per  cent  greater 
than  that  of  the  trees  al)ove  the  average. 


Table  21 

Per  Cent  Gain  in  Growth  Made  by  Trees  Above  and  Below  the  Average 
Growth  in  1912 — New  Brunswick,  1913 


1 

1 

BELOW  AVERAGE 

ABOVE  AVERAGE 

N(j.  of  1 

Growth 

1 

1 

Growth 

1 

1 

'S 

6 

Growth 

Growth 

1 

variety 

Trees  | 

1 

1912 

1 

1 

1913 

Gain 

1 

1 Trees  | 

1912 

1913  1 

Gain 

1 

1 

1 

Indies 

1 

1 

Inches 

[ 

1 Per  cent 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

Per  cent 

Elherta,  

17  1 

2:17 

1 

297."; 

1 1154 

1 1 

553 

2965 

433 

Stnnip,  

0 ( 

4;IS 

1 

3196 

1 63D 

1 8 1 

SOI 

3108 

288 

C'ai'iiian 

14 

2(51 

1 

2869 

j 1(109 

1 12  1 

563 

3008 

435 

i 

.IS  1 

1 

27:3 

1 

1 

2931 

! 1052 

1 

1 32  1 

1 1 

583 

3028 

1 

42) 

In  order  to  study  the  matter  in  further  detail  and  to  determine, 
if  possible,  what  amount  of  difference  in  twig  growth  is  an  eco- 
nomic factor,  the  trees  are  grouped  in  table  22  according  to 
differences  of  100  inches  in  linear  twig  growth  in  1912.  In  this 
table  the  following  trees  are  omitted  because  they  are  obviously 
abnormal  as  to  growth  : in  the  Vineland  orchard.  Row  17,  Tree  5, 
which  had  a growth  in  1912  and  1913  of  306  inches  and  1045 
inches,  res])ectively ; Row  6,  Tree  3,  431  inches  and  1466  inches, 
resi;ectively : and  Row  2,  Tree  5,  734  inches  and  1571  inches, 
resjiectively.  'fwo  trees  in  the  New  Brunswick  orchard  also 
have  lieen  omitted  from  the  calculations;  Row  5,  Tree  4,  with  a 
growth  of  747  inches  in  1912  and  16(84  inches  in  1913,  and  Row 
5,  d'ree  2,  with  a growth  of  627  and  1470  inches  in  1912  and 
1913,  res])ectively. 

In  an  examination  of  the  Vineland  results  it  may  be  noted 
that  the  jier  cent  gain  in  growth  during  the  second  season  was 
jiractically  in  inverse  pro])ortion  to  the  amount  of  growth  made 
in  1912.  In  otlier  words,  the  trees  that  made  the  smallest  growth 
during  the  first  season  made  the  greatest  jier  cent  increase  in 
twig  growth  (hiring  the  second  season.  In  actual  total  of  growth, 


Buli^Etin  326 


39 


however,  the  larger  the  trees  in  1912  the  greater  was  the  growth 
in  1913.  For  example,  trees  averaging  553  inches  of  growth  in 
1912  made  an  average  growth  of  3299  inches,  or  a gain  of  496 
per  cent.  On  the  other  hand,  trees  that  averaged  947  inches  in 
1912  made  an  average  growth  of  4199  inches  in  1913,  which  is 
a gain  of  only  343  per  cent. 


Table  22 

Comparison  of  Gain  in  Linear  Twig  Growth  Between  Trees  of  Varying 
Vigor  (Trees  Grouped  on  Basis  of  ioo  Inches  Difference  in 
Total  Twig  Growth  in  1912). 


SIZE  OF 

TREES  1912 

Vineland 

New  Brunswick 

Nninber 

Trees 

1 Average  Growth 

1 

1 

Gain 

Number 

Trees 

Average  Growth 

j 

1 

1 

Gain 

1 

1 

1 

1912 

1 

1913 

1 

1912 

1 

1913 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

1 Per  Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

Per  Cent 

100-200 

10 

1 149 

2646 

1673 

201-300,  

2 

272 

3112 

1046 

9 1 

252 

2978 

1079 

301-400 

3 ! 

339 

2869 

746 

16  1 

332 

3228 

872 

401-500 

r, 

446 

2845 

538 

13  1 

459 

2998 

654 

501-600 

15 

553 

3299 

496 

6 

526 

2871 

446 

601-700,  

21 

651 

3758 

477 

7 

639 

3273 

413 

701-800,  

22 

745 

4237  1 

469 

3 

768 

3265 

325 

801-900 

14 

844 

4221 

400 

1 

812 

2710 

233 

901-1000 

11 

947 

4199 

343 

2 

961 

3919 

308 

1001-1100 

7 

1064 

5516 

418 

1 

1101-1200,  

1176 

5373 

357 

Over  1200 

5 1 

1 

1312  1 

1 

5691 

334 

The  same  general  facts  are  noted  in  the  results  at  New  Bruns- 
wick. The  per  cent  gain  in  1913  is  in  inverse  ratio  to  the  amount 
of  growth  in  1912.  There  are  some  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule  demonstrated  at  Vineland,  that  the  total  growth  in  1913  was 
in  proportion  to  the  total  growTh  in  1912,  but  the  general  tendency 
was  in  that  direction.  The  fact  that  the  number  of  trees  at  New 
Brunswick  was  rather  limited  may  account  for  the  somewhat 
variable  results. 

It  is  now  of  interest  to  compare  in  more  detail  the  behavior  of 
different  groups  of  trees  arranged  on  a basis  of  100  inches  differ- 
ence in  total  twig  growth  in  1912.  The  greatest  number  of  trees 
at  V^ineland  in  any  group  was  22,  and  occurred  in  those  ranging 
from  a total  of  701  to  800  inches,  while  the  group  of  trees  100 
inches  smaller  in  size  was  represented  by  21  trees.  There  was 
not  a single  individual  at  Vineland  with  less  than  200  inches  of 
twig  growth,  and  there  were  five  trees  exceeding  120O'  inches. 


40 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Pp:aches 


Although  the  trees  planted  at  New  Brunswick  were  from  the 
same  source,  and  were  planted  on  a fertile  red  shale  soil,  they 
did  not  make  nearly  as  free  a growth  as  those  at  Vineland.  The 
greatest  number  of  trees  at  New  Brunswick  in  any  one  group 
was  i6,  in  those  ranging  from  a total  of  301  to  400  inches,  and 
there  were  10  trees  within  the  group  101-200  inches.  There 
was  not  a single  tree  exceeding  a total  of  1000  inches  of  growth. 

In  the  Vineland  experiment  100  inches  difference  in  twig 
growth  in  trees  ranging  from  an  average  of  745  to  947  inches 
did  not  make  itself  evident  during  1913,  as  may  be  noted  by  an 
examination  of  table  22.  Each  additional  100  inches  of  growth 
on  trees  ranging  from  446  inches  to  those  averaging  745  inches 
did  apparently  have  an  influence  upon  the  growth  of  1913.  In 
these  three  groups  a difference  of  about  100  inches  in  1912  in- 
creased to  454,  459  and  479,  respectively,  in  1913.  A very 
marked  gain  is  shown  by  the  group  averaging  1064  inches  in 
1912  over  that  averaging  947  inches,  a difference  of  117  inches 
of  twig  growth  in  1912  increasing  to  1317  inches  in  1913. 

At  New  Brunswick  there  is  very  little  difference  between  the 
various  groups  of  trees  ranging  from  332  to  an  average  of  768 
inches.  A difference  of  200  inches  in  twig  growth  the  first 
season  may  not,  therefore,  indicate  any  marked  difference  the 
second  season. 

One  would  expect  that  100  inches  difference  in  growth  would 
be  a more  pronounced  factor  with  trees  of  certain  sizes  than  with 
others.  In  general,  one  might  lie  led  to  infer  that  such  a differ- 
ence would  continue  to  be  more  apparent  between  small  trees 
tlian  it  would  lietween  medium  to  large  trees.  But  such  is  not 
the  case  in  these  exiieriments.  Not  only  have  the  very  small 
trees  made  a very  remarkable  gain  in  growth,  Imt  the  trees  having 
tlie  smallest  average  in  1912  are  lietter  than  the  group  which 
averaged  100  inches  larger  in  lioth  orchards  in  1912. 

Certain  groujis  of  trees  of  a medium  to  large  size  are  appar- 
ently not  very  sensitive  to  a difference  of  100  inches  in  growth 
the  first  season.  Just  why  there  are  marked  differences  of  in- 
crease in  twig  growth  between  some  groipis  and  not  between 
others  the  writers  are  unable  to  say. 

In  order  to  make  still  further  comparisons,  the  trees  were 
arranged  in  groups  on  the  basis  of  a difference  of  50  inches  of 


BUI.I.ETIN  326 


4T 


total  twig  growth  and  the  results  appear  in  table  23.  As  in  the 
previous  table  a few  obviously  abnormal  trees  were  omitted  from 
the  calculations.  The  number  of  trees  in  several  of  the  groups 
is  too  limited  to  make  the  results  dependable,  yet  certain  points 
niiiy  be  gathered. 


Tabce  23 


Comparison  or  Gains  in  Linear  Twig  Growth  Between  Trees  oe  Varying 
Vigor  (Trees  Grouped  on  Basis  oe  50  Inches  Dieference  in 
Totar  Twig  Growth  in  1912). 


Vineland  New  Brunswick 


SIZE  OF 
TREES  1912 

Averaa'e  Growth 

1 

Gain 

1 

Number 

Trees 

1 

Average  Growth 

Gain 

Number 

Trees 

1912  1 

1 

1913 

1 

1912 

1913 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

1 Per  Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per  Cent 

100-150,  

4 1 

117 

2388 

1941 

151-200 

6 

171 

2817 

1547 

201  2.50,  

4 

229 

2764 

1107 

251-300 

'2 

272 

3112 

1046 

5 

271 

.3150 

1062 

301-350 

2 

324 

3002 

827 

14 

325 

3235 

895 

351-100,  

1 

369 

2603 

606 

2 

377 

3182 

<■±4 

401-450,  

3 

422 

2668 

532 

6 

431 

2640 

512 

451-500,  

2 

482 

3111 

546 

, 7 

482 

3291 

583 

501-550,  

7 

528 

3285 

522 

1 6 

.526 

2871 

446 

551-600,  

8 

575 

3312 

476 

601-650,  

12 

634 

3577 

465 

5 

627 

3586 

'472 

651-700 

9 

674 

3999 

493 

2 

667 

2491 

273 

701-750,  

14 

727 

4587 

531 

1 

750 

1 2337 

212 

751-800 

8 • 

776 

3625 

367 

i 2 

777 

3729 

380 

801-850,  

8 

824 

4072 

394 

1 

812 

2710 

233 

851-900 

6 

871 

4419 

408 

901-950 

5 

923 

4597 

398 

1 

924 

4120 

346 

951-1000 

6 

969 

3868 

299 

1 

998 

3717 

272 

1001-1050 

1 

1010 

5778 

472 

1051-1100,  

6 

1074 

5472 

410 

1101-1150,  

1151-1200 

’2 

1176 

5373 

357 

1201-1250,  

2 

1202 

1 

4874 

306 

1 

1239 

1 2709 

1 

iis 

The  trees  falling  into  the  first  or  lowest  groups  in  terms  of 
total  twig  growth  in  1912  made  such  gains  as  to  be  larger  than 
the  trees  in  what  was  the  third  group  in  size  in  1912.  This 
holds  true  for  both  orchards. 

Beginning  with  the  group  of  trees  averaging  575  inches  of 
twig  growth  at  Vineland  in  1912,  the  50-inch  groups,  up  to  and 
including  the  group  701-750  inches,  showed  in  the  total  for  1913 
gains  of  265  inches,  422  inches  and  588  inches,  respectively. 
Beyond  this  point  there  is  a decrease  for  3 groups. 

In  the  New  Brunswick  experiments  a difference  of  50  inches 
in  twig  growth  between  the  first  two  groups  of  trees  in  1912 


F^runing  Experiments  With  Peaches 


42 

had  increased  to  an  average  difference  of  429  inches  in  1913. 
Other  marked  differences  may  l^e  noted  l)et\veen  certain  groups, 
but  there  is  no  regular  ascending  scale  of  increase  exhibited  by 
the  groups  of  trees.  The  numbers  of  trees  are  limited  in  these 
studies  and  some  irregularity  of  results  is  to  be  expected.  How- 
ever, there  is  some  factor  which  brings  about  a considerable  gain 
in  twig  growth  during  the  second  season  in  trees  that  average 
50  inches  larger  in  total  twig  growth  than  the  next  lower  group, 
while  between  other  groups  a difference  of  50  inches  in  average 
total  twig  growth  during  the  first  season  is  apparently  a negli- 
gilde  factor  in  the  results  of  the  second  season. 

INDIVIDUAL  differences 

The  wide  difference  between  the  individuals  within  a group  is 
of  interest  at  this  point.  The  551-600  group  at  Vineland  in 

1912  showed  a range  in  total  growth  of  2499  to  4739  inches  in 

1913  ; the  601-650  group  in  1912  showed  individual  differences 
m development  ranging  from  2110  to  5258  inches  in  1913.  At 
Xew  Brunswick  the  15 1-200  group  in  1912  had  individuals 
ranging  from  1734  to  4670  inches  in  1913.  The  variation  in  the 
amount  and  per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth  between  individual 
])each  trees  during  the  second  season  is  very  great.  It  is  too  early 
in  the  progress  of  the  exjieriments,  however,  to  determine  the 
significance  of  these  differences  in  terms  of  the  economic  welfare 
of  the  orchard. 


:measurement  of  circumference  of  trunks  of  trees  at 

VINELAND,  1913 

d'he  circumference  of  the  trunks  6 inches  aliove  the  surface 
of  the  soil  was  taken  at  the  close  of  the  season  of  1913,  and  the 
results  are  given  in  table  24. 

'Idle  average  circumference  of  all  the  trees  in  the  experiments 
at  the  close  of  1913  was  8.04  inches.  The  largest  tree  was  Row 
26,  Tree  3 (Carman),  with  a circumference  of  10.25  inches.  The 
smallest  tree  was  Row  2,  Tree  3 (Carman),  with  a circumference 
of  5.50  inches.  There  were  42  trees  above  and  55  below  the 
average  on  the  basis  of  all  trees  regardless  of  variety. 


Bulletin  326 


43 


The  average  circumference  of  the  Stump  trees  was  8.14  inches, 
of  wliich  15  were  above  and  20  below  this  average  { ta1)le  25). 
Two  trees,  Row  i,  Tree  4,  and  Row  10,  Tree  4,  made  the  greatest 
total  growth  in  circumference,  9.75  inches.  The  tree  having  the 
smallest  circumference  was  Row  22,  Tree  3,  with  a total  of  7.00 
inches. 


Tabi^e  24 

Measurement  of  Circumferences 
ViNEEAND,  1913 


PRUNING 


KEATMENT 

Row 

Variety 

1 

♦Tree  1 

Tree  2 

1 

1 Tree  3 

1 

1 Tree  4 

1 

Tree  5 

1 

Average 

1 

1 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Not 

1 

Stump,  

.... 

7.75 

9.75 

7.25 

8.25 

pruned 

2 

Carman 

.... 

8.75 

5.50 

7.75 

7.50 

7.38 

3 

Elherta 

1 

.... 

.... 

Winter 

4 

1 

1 Stump 

1 

1 .... 

8.25 

8.00 

8.25 

8.17 

not  cut 

5 

1 Carman 

1 8.60 

8.25 

9.00 

1 8.75 

8.25 

8.56 

back 

G 

1 Elherta,  

1 

1 ■■■• 

6.50 

7.00 

1 8.00 

1 

1 8.25 

7.44 

Summer 

7 

1 

1 Stump 

1 

1 .... 

7.25 

1 7.75 

8.00 

1 

1 7.67 

only 

8 

1 Carman 

! .... 

7.50 

7.5o 

1 .... 

9.25 

1 8.08 

9 

1 Elherta,  

1 

1 5.7.7 

7.75 

7.00 

1 7. .50 

7.75 

1 7.50 

Winter 

10 

1 

1 Stump 

1 

1 7.00 

7.25 

7.50 

1 

! 9.75 

1 O.W 

8.38 

and 

1 11 

1 Carman 

1 7.75 

7.75 

7.25 

I 8.0O 

1 8.50 

7.87. 

summer 

! 12 

1 Elherta,  

1 5.25 

1 7.00 

1 8.00 

7.50 

Winter 

13 

1 

1 Stump 

1 

1 6.50 

7.50 

7.50 

1 

1 7., 50 

1 

1 8.75 

1 7.81 

cut 

1 11 

! Carman,  

8.25 

9.50 

1 7.50 

1 8.41 

ha  ck 

lo 

1 Elherta,  

1 

1 

6.75 

8.75 

1 8.25 

1 7.00 

1 7.6.8 

Winter 

1 16 

1 

I'  Stump 

1 6.50 

8.50 

1 

1 9.25 

1 

1 7.50 

1 8.41 

not  cut 

1 11 

1 Carman,  

.... 

9.00 

7.09 

! 7.75 

5.75 

7.37 

hack 

18 

Elherta 

1 

1 6.00 

7.  .50 

1 

1 8.75 

8.12 

Not 

19 

1 

1 Stump,  1 

1 

6.75 

7.5o  1 

1 

8.00  1 

1 

9., 50 

8.33 

pruned 

1 Carman 

1 6.25 

1 9.50  1 

9.75 

9.62 

21 

1 Elherta,  | 

1 

8.00 

1 

7^75  1 

....  1 

7.75 

Winter 

22 

1 

1 Stump,  

1 

7.25 

8.50 

7.00 

7.75 

7.50 

7.68 

and 

23 

1 Carman,  

8.25 

7.25  1 

7.50  1 

7.75 

7.68 

summer 

24 

1 Elherta,  

1 1 

6.25 

7.75 

....  1 

7.(X)  1 

6.75 

7.16 

Winter 

25 

1 1 
Stump 1 

7.25 

8.50 

8.25  1 

9.50 

9.00 

8.81 

cut 

26 

Carman | 

6.75 

9.50 

10.25  1 

9.50  1 

8.50 

9.43 

liack 

1 

Elherta I 

1 1 

7.75 

8.01)  1 
1 

8.50  1 

9.25 

8.37 

Rummer 

28 

1 1 

1 Stump 1 

6.25 

8.0<1 

1 

7., 50  1 

8.25  ] 

8.00 

7.93 

only 

29  Carman,  I 

6.25 

8.25 

7.50  1 

8.50  1 

9.00 

8.31 

3t>  1 

1 

Elherta | 

1 

6.00 

....  1 

1 

7.00  1 

1 

8.50 

7.75 

* Tree  1 in  each  row  is  not  included  in  the  averages  for  the  rows. 


Carman  showed  the  greatest  average  growth  in  circumference 
with  a total  of  8.20  inches,  of  which  variety  20  trees  were  above 
and  16  below  the  average.  It  was  also  represented  by  the  largest 
and  the  smallest  trees  in  circumference  in  the  experiments  as  pre- 
viously noted. 


44 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


The  Elberta  trees  made  an  average  circumference  of  7.69 
inches,  of  which  15  trees  were  above  and  ii  below  the  average. 
Row  27,  Tree  5,  was  the  largest  of  these  with  a circumference  of 
9.25  inches,  and  Row  6,  Tree  2,  was  the  smallest,  with  a circum- 
ference of  6.50  inches. 


Average  of  Circumference  Arranged  According  to  Future  l^reat- 

ments 


The  measurement  of  the  circumferences  at  Vineland  at  the 
close  of  the  season  of  1913,  averaged  by  future  treatments,  is 
shown  in  table  25. 


Table  25 

Average  oe  Circumeerences  According  to  Treatments 
Vineland,  1913 


Not  Primed 


Winter  Not 
Cut  Back 


Summer 


I Winter  and 
Summer 


Winter 
Cut  Back 


I All  Treat- 
1 ments 


VARIETY 


tsj  a- 


Mi 

O 


bxj 


cc 

O' 

<li 


0;  O 

bl  O' 


o 


<V  <ZJ 


<D 


0^  O' 
bsj  9 


Mi 


O)  Oi 
fcJD  V 


0 

Av 

pel 

E 

0 

^ a 

E 

0 

^ a 

0 

0 

0 

^ s 

0 

< a 

In. 

In. 

1 

1 

In. 

1 

1 

In. 

1 

1 

In. 

1 111. 

All,  

1 

7 

7.75 

2 

11 

8.(15 

1 3 

10 

7.73 

1 ^ 

10 

8.00 

1 5 

11 

7.93 

7 

G 

8.G7 

1 6 

91 

7.89 

1 10 

10 

8.05 

1 8 

11 

7.55 

1 9 

12 

8.88 

i:j 

8.17 

2!) 

7.98 

20 

7.89 

1 

21 

7.76 

1 

23 

8.42 

97 

8.04 

Stump 

1 

3 

8.25 

2 

3 

8.17 

3 

3 

7.67  ! 

1 

4 

4 

8.38  I 

1 

5 

4 

7.81 

7 

3 

8.33 

G 

3 

8.41 

10 

4 

7.93  1 

8 

4 

7.68  1 

9 

4 

8.81 

G 

8.2!) 

G 

8.29 

7 

7.82 

1 

8 

8.03 

1 

1 

8 

8.31 

35 

8.14 

Carman,  

1 

4 

7.38 

2 

4 

8.5G 

3 

3 

8.08 

1 4 

4 

7.87 

1 

1 5 

3 

8.41 

7 

2 

n.G2 

G 

4 

7.37 

1 10 

4 

8.31 

1 8 

4 

7.68 

1 9 

4 

9.43 

G 

8.13  1 

8 

7.97  1 

7 

8.21  1 

1 

8 

7.78  1 

7 

9.00  1 

36 

8.20 

Elberta,  

1 

1 

....  1 

2 

4 

7.44 

3 

4 

7.50 

1 

1 

2 

7.50 

i 

1 5 

4 

7.68 

7 

1 

7.75  1 

c 

2 

8.12 

10 

2 

7.75 

1 8 

3 

7.16 

1 9' 

4 

8.. 37 

1 

7.75  1 

1 

1 

G 

7.G7 

1 

G 

7.58 

1 

5 

7.30  1 

I 

1 

8 

8.03 

26 

7.69 

A comparison  of  the  ranking  in  1912  with  the  ranking  in  1913 
is  given  in  table  26. 

Little  consistency  is  shown  at  present  by  this  tahulation. 
Stump  “summer”  has  the  same  rank  in  both  years  and  Stump 
“winter  not  cut  l)ack”  ranked  second  in  1912  and  tied  with  “not 
pruned”  for  second  in  1913.  Other  than  these,  the  rankings  have 
changed. 


Pi  ATE  1 


Fig.  I.  Winter  1912-1913  Fig.  2.  Winter  1913-1914 

Twig  Growth,  773  Inches  Twig  Growth,  5507  Inches 

Stump  Tree,  Not  Pruned,  Vineland,  Row  19,  Tree  2 


£'-*1 

Fig.  3.  Winter  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  1177  Inches 


Fig.  4.  Winter  T913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  5088  Inches 


Carman  Tree,  Not  Pruned,  Vineland,  Row  20,  Tree  4 


Plate  2 


Fig.  5.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  1080  Inches 


Fig.  7.  Before  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  5060  Inches 


Fig.  6.  After  Pruning.  1912-1913 


Fig.  8.  After  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  2365  Inches 


Carman  Tree,  “Winter  Not  Cut  Back,"  Vineland,  Row  17,  Tree  2 


Plate  3 


Fig.  9.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  542  Inches 


\ Fig.  ii.^  Before  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  2498  Inches 


Fig.  10.  After  Priming,  1912-1913 


Fig.  12.  After  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1047  Inches 


Elberta  Tree,  “Winter  Not  Cut  Back,”  Vineland,  Row  18,  Tree  5 


Plate  4 


Fig.  13.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  640  Inches  . 


Fig.  15.  Before  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  4960  Inches 


Fig.  *4. 


.After  Pruning,  1912-1913  Fig.  16.  After  Pruning,  1913-1914 

Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1441  Inches 

Stump  Tree,  “Winter  Not  Cut  Back,”  Vineland,  Row  16,  Tree  3 


Plate  5 


Fig.  17.  Before  Priming,  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  963  Inches 


Fig.  19.  Before  Priming,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  2964  Inches 


Fig.  18.  After  Priming,  1912-1913 

Stump  Tree,  “Winter 


Fig.  20.  After  Priming,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth  Primed  Off,  1952  Inches 

Cut  Back,”  Vineland,  Row  25,  Tree  3 


Plate  (j 


Fig.  21.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913 
• T wig  Growth,  548  Inches 


Fig.  23.  Before  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  2676  Inches 


Fig.  22.  After  Pruning,  1912-1913  Fig.  24.  After  Pruning,  1913-1914 

Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  909  Inches 

Carman  Tree,  “Winter  Cut  Back,"  Vineland,  Row  14,  Tree  5 


Pl.ATE  7 


Fig.  25.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  1254  Inches 


Fig.  27.  Before  Pruning,  Summer,  1913 


i 

/ ' / 

\ \ 

/ 

\ I 

\\  \ 

I A 

Fig.  26.  After  Pruning,  1912-1913 


Fig.  28.  After  Pruning,  Summer,  1913 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1347  Inches 


Stump  Tree,  “Winter  and  Summer,”  Vineland,  Row  10,  Tree  4 


Pl.ATlJ  8 


Fig.  29.  Before  Priming,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  Including  Summer  Priming,  6288  Inches 


Fig.  30.  After  Priming,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth  Primed  Off,  3180  Inches 

Stump  Tree,  “Winter  and  Summer,”  Vineland,  Row  10,  Tree  4 


I^UATli  9 


Fig.  31.  Before  Pruning.  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  685  Inches 


Fig.  33.  Before  Pruning.  Summer,  1913 


Fig.  32. 


F'ig.  24  .After  Pruning.  Summer,  1913 
After  Pruning,  1912-1913  Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  860  Inches 

Elberta  Tree,  “Winter  and  Summer,’'  Vineland,  Row  12,  Tree  4 


Plate  10 


Fig-  35-  Before  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  Including  Summer  Pruning,  3481  Inches 


Fig.  36.  After  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1454  Inches 

Elberta  Tree,  “Winter  and  Summer,"  Vineland,  Row  12,  Tree  4 


Plate  11 


Fig.  37.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1915 
Twig  Growth,  973  Inches 


Fig.  39.  Before  Pruning,  July,  1913 


Fig.  38.  After  Pruning,  1912-1913 


Fig.  40.  After  Pruning,  July,  1913 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  936  Inches 


Elberta  Tree,  “Winter  and  Summer,”  Vineland,  Row  24,  Tree  3 


Plate  12 


Fig.  41.  Before  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  Including  Summer  Pruning,  4235  Inches 


Fig.  42.  After  Pruning,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1556  Inches 

Elberta  Tree,  “Winter  and  Summer,”  Vineland,  Row  24,  Tree  3 


Plate  13 


Fig.  43.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913 
Twig  Growth,  1068  Inches 


Fig.  45.  Before  Pruning,  July,  1913 


Fig.  44. 


After  Pruning,  1912-1913 


Fig.  46.  After  Pruning,  July,  1913 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1252  Inches 


Carman  Tree,  “Summer  Only,”  Vineland,  Row  8,  Tree  4 


Plate  14 


Fig.  48.  After  Pruning,  October,  1913 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1062  Inches 


Fig.  49.  Aspect  in  Winter,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  Total,  Including  Summer 
_ Pruning,  5543 

Twig  Growth  Remaining,  3229  Inches 


Carman  Tree,  “Summer  Only,”  Vineland,  Row  8,  Tree  4 


Plate  15 


Fig.  50.  Before  Pruning,  1912-1913  Fig.  52.  Before  Pruning,  July,  1913 

Twig  Growth,  119  Inches 


Fig.  51,  After  Pruning,  1912-1913 


Fig.  53.  After  Pruning,  July,  1913 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  1311  Inches 


Elberta  Tree,  “Summer  Only,”  New  Brunswick,  Row  4,  Tree  3 


Plate  16 


Fig.  54.  Before  Pruning,  Oct.,  1913 


Fig.  55.  After  Pruning,  Oct.,  1913 
Twig  Growth  Pruned  Off,  328  Inches 


I'ig.  56.  Aspect  in  Winter,  1913-1914 
Twig  Growth,  Total.  Including  Summer  Pruning,  3276  Inches 
Twig  Growth  Remaining,  1637  Inches 

Elberta  Tree,  “Summer  Only,”  New  Brunswick,  Row  4,  Tree  3 


BuIvIvETIN  326 


45 


Table  26 

Comparison  oe  the  Ranking  as  to  x\verage  oe  Trunk  Circumeerence  oe 
THE  Various  Treatments  in  1912  and  1913  at  Vineland 


treatment 

All 

Stump  j 

Caiman  | Ell)erta 

1 

1912  1913 

1912  1913 

1912  1913 

1912  1913 

Not  pruned 

Winter  not  cut  back,  

Winter  cut  back,  

Winter  and  summer,  

Summer 

1 2 

4 3 

3 1 

2 5 

5 4 

3 2 

2 2 

4 1 

1 4 

.5  u 

1 3 

5 4 

2 1 

3 5 

4 2 

*5  2 

1 3 

3 1 

3 5 

2 4 

* Oue  tree. 


Per  Cent  Increase  in  Trunk  Circumference  During  19 ig 

Since  the  trees  were  compared  on  the  basis  of  per  cent  gain 
in  twig  growth,  it  is  of  interest  to  compare  them  as  to  per  cent 
increase  in  trunk  circumference  also.  Table  27  shows  the  cir- 
cumference in  1912  and  1913  and  the  per  cent  increase  for  each 
tree. 

The  varieties  rank  as  follows  on  the  basis  of  per  cent  gain  in 
circumference  during  1913  regardless  of  treatment:  (i)  Car- 
man, with  109  per  cent;  (2)  Elberta,  with  108  per  cent;  and, 
(3)  Stump,  with  96  per  cent.  Thus  the  rank  according  to  gain 
in  circumference  differs  from  that  according  to  per  cent  gain  in 
twig  growth,  since  Elberta  ranks  second  in  the  former  case  and 
third  in  the  latter. 

Actual  and  Per  Cent  Gain  in  Circumference  Coni  fared  on  Basis 

of  Treatment 

Table  28  shows  the  average  circumferences  for  1912  and  1913 
and  the  per  cent  gain  in  circumference,  arranged  according  to 
treatment.  Tables  29  and  30  show  in  detail  the  ranking  of 
the  various  treatments  according  to  twig  growth,  circumference 
and  per  cent  gain  in  each  case. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  treatments  rank  the  same  when  com- 
pared on  the  basis  of  average  twig  growth  and  average  circum- 
ference, regardless  of  variety.  Differences  may  be  noted  in 
rank,  however,  on  the  basis  of  the  individual  variety. 


Tabi,e  27 

’kk  C knt  Increase  in  Trunk  Circumeerence  at  Vineeand,  1913  Over  1912 


t-j  10 

GC  col- 


es 10  •> 

CO  eo  M 


t-  00  t-  00  i-  i’ 


I-  06  t- 


00  I-  00  00  OS  t- 


-r  LO  CO 


a;  CO  cs  CO  t-- 
co  os  06  i-  CO  i- 


CO  00 
^ coco 


w S CO 

Tl?  Tji  CO 


T)1  CO  CO  •>!*<  CO 


CO  os  o 
r-J  CD  © 
■<1!  Tji  CO 


CO  CO  ’ 


8 


X X CO  X © t-  © X X X I-  t-  I-  LO  so  © © 


t,  I-  CD  © X © 


888 

06  05  00 


S^8 


GO  c^^  I- 
LO  CO 


8 


lO  0 

ci 


: -r  LO 

©© 


© X I-  I-  © X © I' 


81:^  : 


80  • iO  Q O 000  to  O O 

^10  • tOiOlO  (Ntoo 

GC  O • t-  I-  ci  O 06  06  00 


to  OA 

l>-  iH 
tt  CO  CO 


SET 


855 


i- 1-  i-  t’  I 


LO  a I- 
I-  xj  X 


CD  J-  'JJ 

£ CO'  X 
CO  CO 


88  :8 


CO  CO  ci 


00  LO 
CO  CO 


X o ^ >co  wo 

GO  10  04  I-  t- 

CO  CO  CO  CO  <N 


X X t-  X © I 


I 


X C 10 
X © I- 

-fH  -ti  CO 


wo  X wo 
04  X t- 
CO 


04  04  ■ 

CO  • 


wo 


0 »'■'  x'  ©"  C tH  04*  CO*  T wo*  © 4-*  X OS  o* 
.Hi-HrH  ^04  04  04  04  04  04  04  04  04O4X 


© I-  X © c 


04 

CO 


aJ 

W) 


o- 

> 

< 


I 


Jiul.LETlN  326  47 

2S 

Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumeerence  According  to  Treatments 
ViNEEAND,  1913  Over  1912 


TREATMENT 

1912 

All 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

Stump 

1913 

Gain 

Carman 

1912  1913 

Gain 

1912 

Elbert 

1913 

Gain 

Inches 

Inches 

Per 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per 

Cent 

All 

3.94 

8.01 

104 

4.16 

8.14 

96 

3.92 

8.20 

109 

3.69 

7.69 

lOS 

Not  pruned,  • • 

4.15 

8.17 

97 

4.17 

8.29 

99 

4.. 33 

8.13 

88 

3.0O 

7.75 

158 

Winter  not  cut 
back 

3.87 

7.98 

lOG 

4.19 

S.29 

97 

3.65 

7.97 

119 

3.84 

7.67 

100 

Summer 

3.85 

7.89 

105 

3.98 

7.82 

97 

3.87 

8.21 

112 

3.69 

7.58 

105 

Summer  and 
winter,  

4.01 

7.76 

93 

4.33 

8.03 

86 

3.89 

7.78 

100 

3.67 

7.. 30 

99 

M inter  cut 
back,  

3.93 

8.42 

114 

4.11 

8.31 

102 

3.98 

9.00 

126 

3.67 

8.03 

119 

Tabee  29 

Reeative  Rank  of  Treatments,  1912  and  1913,  and  Per  Cent  Gain  Accord- 
ing TO  Circumference  of  Trunks 


All 

Stump 

Carman 

Elberta 

Per 

1912  1913  Ceut 

Gain 

Per 

1912  191.3  Cent 

Gain 

Per 

1912  1913  Cent 

Gain 

Per 

1912  1913  Cent 

Gain 

Not  pruned,  . . 

4 4 97 

3 2 99 

1 3 88 

5 2 158* 

Winter  not  cut 

back,  

5 5 106 

2 3 97 

5 4 119 

4 3 100 

Summer  only,  , 
Winter  and 

3 1 105 

5 4 97 

'4  2 112 

1 4 105 

summer 

1 3 93 

1 5 86 

3 5 100 

3 5 99 

Winter  cut 

back,  

2 2 114 

4 1 102 

2 1 126 

2 1 119 

* 1 tree  only. 


Tabee  30 

Reeative  Rank  of  Treatments,  1912  and  1913,  and  Per  Cent  Gain  Accord- 
ing to  Twig  Growth 


All 

Stump 

Carman 

Elberta 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

Gain 

Not  pruned,  . . 
Winter  not  cut 

4 

4 

449 

5 

.5 

512 

0 

4 

392 

3 

2 

457 

back,  

5 

419 

4 

4 

450 

5 

5 

373 

5 

5 

440 

Summer  only,  . 
Winter  and 

! 

1 

4.52 

1 

3 

389 

1 

1 

491 

4 

3 

477 

summer,  .... 
Winter  cut 

1 

3 

412 

3 

2 

411 

4 

3 

431 

1 

1 

393 

back,  

2 

2 

431 

1 

416 

2 

2 

494 

1 

0 

~ 

4 

390 

Pruning;  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Measurement  of  Cireumfereuce  of  Trunks  of  Trees  at  Nezv 

Brunszoick,  /pij 

At  the  close  of  the  season,  the  circumference  of  the  trunks  of 
the  trees  was  measured  at  a height  of  six  inches  above  the 
gTouncl,  and  these  measurements  are  shown  in  table  31.  The 
average  circumference  of  all  the  trees,  regardless  of  variety,  was 
7.24  inches,  and  there  were  30  trees  above  the  average.  Row  8, 
Tree  2,  an  Elberta,  was  high  tree  for  the  variety  and  for  all 
varieties,  with  a circumference  of  9.25  inches.  The  low  tree  of 
this  variety  was  Row  i,  Tree  8,  with  a circumference  of  6.00 
inches.  The  average  for  the  variety  was.  7.31  inches,  9 trees 
being  above  and  16  below  the  average. 


Tabce  31 

Measurement  of  Circumferences 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


VARIETY 

i 

L 

i 

1 1 

|Row  1 Row  2 

1 i 

1 

|Row  3|Row  4 

1 1 

1 

1 

Row  5 

1 

Row  6 

1 

1 

Row  7 

1 

1 

Row  8 

1 

Row  9 

All 

Rows 

Tree  No. 

NI* 

WNCB 

1 

1 ^ ' 

In. 

WCB 

W&S 

X/l 

K 

O 

WCB 

All 

Treatments 

1 

Inches  1 Inches 

1 1 

Inches  1 

- 1 

Inches!  Inches 

Inches 

1 1 

Inches|Inehes 

Inches 

Inches 

Elhorta,  

1 

1 7.50  1 

7.25  1 

7.25  1 

7.50 

7 2.*)  ’ 

1 7.50 

1 8.25 

8.50 

2 1 

6.00  1 7.00 

7.00  1 

7.00  1 

6.50 

7.50 

1 

1 9.25 

7.O0 

•■5  1 

1 0.75  1 

6.75  1 

7.00  1 

6.50 

6.75  I 

7.25  1 

8.50  1 

7.00 

4 

|..  ..|  8.00 

1 . . . 1 

1 

1 

1 

AvGrage  | 

..  ..1 

6.00  1 7.31  1 

7.00  1 

7.08  1 

6.83 

7.17  1 

7.38  1 

f 8.67 

7.50 

7.31 

j 

1 

1 

1 . 

8 00  1 

1 

7.00  1 

6.25 

1 

7.25 

1 7.00 

1 

7.00 

8.50  1 7.50 

7.50  1 

7.00  1 

7.75 

6.75 

6.75  1 

7.25 

8.. 50 

AvoragG  

8.50  1 7.50 

7.75  I 

7.00 

7.00 

6.75 

7.00 

7.13 

7.75 

7.33 

. 

I'a  riiiaii  1 

1 

f; 

1 

1 7.O0 

7.00  1 

6.00  1 

8.50 

7.25 

1 

7. .50 

1 

8.25 

1 

7.00 

’ 1 

8.50  1 5.75 

5.75  1 

6.25 

7.75 

6. .50 

7.00  1 

8.75 

8.00 

1 

7.00  1 7.00 

7.00  1 

6.75  1 

7.00 

6.25 

7.25  1 

7.00 

■VvfMuiirp  1 

1 

7.75  1 6.58 

6.58  1 

7.75 

6.67 

7 25  1 

' 8.50 

7.. 33 

7.12 

.\.ll  AvGi’agG,  ..| 
1 

^ 1 

1 

1 

7.50  1 7.06 
( 

7.03  1 

6.33  j 

6.78  1 

1 

7.22 

6.89 

1 

7.21  1 

1 

8.18 

7.. 50 

7.24 

Of  the  variety  Stum]),  Row  i.  Tree  5,  and  Row  9,  Tree  5,  each 
had  a circumference  of  8.50  inches,  the  largest  for  the  variety. 
The  tree  having  the  smallest  circumference  was  Row  5,  Tree  4, 
with  a circumference  of  6.25  inches.  Six  trees  were  above  and 
0 trees  below  the  average  for  the  variety,  7.33  inches. 


Buij.ktin  326 


49 


Carman  had  two  trees  which  measured  5.75  inches;  Row  2, 
Tree  7,  and  Row  3,  Tree  7.  This  is  the  smallest  circumference  for 
the  variety  and  for  all  three  varieties.  The  largest  Carman,  Row 
8,  Tree  7,  had  a circumference  of  8.75  inches.  The  average  for 
this  variety  was  7.12,  9 trees  being  above  and  16  below  the 
average. 


Table  32 


Average  oe  Circumeerences  by  Treatments 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


variety 

1 

1 

Not  1 

Pruned 

1 

I Winter 

1 Not  Cut 

1 Back 

1 

Winter  | 
Cnt  i 

Back  1 

1 

Winter 

and 

Hummer 

l_ 

Summer 

All 

Inches  | 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Elberta,  

6.00  1 

7.89 

1 

7.17 

7.08 

7.20 

7.31 

Stump,  

1 

s..j0  1 

1 

7.2.J  1 

7.38 

7.42 

7.00 

1 

7.33 

Carman,  

7.7o  1 

7.35 

I 7.54 

6.63 

6.79 

7.12 

All 

T.50  , 

7. 38  1 

1 

7.36 

1 

6.96 

1 

6.98 

1 

7.24 

\Mien  the  average  circumferences  are  classified  according  to 
treatment  (table  32),  the  rank  of  the  treatments,  regardless  of 
variety,  is  as  follows : 

Inches 


1.  Not  primed,  7.50 

2.  Winter  not  cut  back,  7.38 

3.  Winter  cut  back,  7.36 

4.  Slimmer  only,  6.98 

5.  Winter  and  summer,  6.96 


This  ranking  agrees  with  the  ranking  as  to  circumference  at 
the  close  of  the  first  season.  The  rank  by  variety,  however,  is 
changed.  In  case  of  each  of  the  three  varieties  the  treatment 
which  had  first  rank  in  1912  retained  its  rank  in  1913,  viz., 
Elberta,  ‘'winter  not  cut  back”  ; Stump,  “not  pruned”  ; Carman, 
“not  pruned.” 


Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumference  During  19 ig 

The  per  cent  increase  in  circumference  for  each  tree,  row,  and 
variety,  is  shown  in  table  33. 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Pj:aches 


Table  33.  ^’er  Cent  Increase  in 


j 

ROW  1 

ROW  2 

! ROW  3 

ROW  4 

1 

1 

1 

NR 

WNCB 

W&S 

S 

VARIETY 

1 

1012 

1013 

Gain 

1012 

1013 

Gain 

1012 

1013 

Gain 

1012 

1 

1913 

Gain 

1 

1— 

1 Tree 

I*er 

Per 

Per 

Per 

No. 

i Inches  Inches  Cent 

Inches  Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches  Cent  Inches 

Inches  Cent 

Elberta 

1 

:*,.?,1 

7.50 

127 

3.37 

7.25 

115 

3.. 50 

7.25 

107 

2 

3.12 

6.00 

87 

2.03 

7.00 

130 

2.81 

7.00 

140 

2.81 

7.00 

149 

;j 

2.1s 

6.75 

210 

3.00 

6.75 

125 

3.12 

7.00 

124 

4 

3.12 

8.00 

156 

6.00 

87 

2.80 

7.31 

153 

3.06 

7.00 

129  : 

3.14 

7.08 

125 

Slunip 

1 

! 

2.03 

7.00 

139 

0 

i 

.3.'i5 

7.. 50 

131  : 

3.81 

7.00 

84 

Average,  

3.25 

7.. 50 

131 

3.37 

7.00 

108 

Carman,  

B 

2.. 10 

7.00 

180 

2.68 

7.00 

161 

2.. 56 

6.00 

134 

7 

4.’r,s 

8..o0 

82 

3.18 

5.75 

81 

2.00 

5.75 

188 

3.12 

6.25 

100 

8 

3.75 

7.00 

S7 

.3.00 

7.<M> 

13.3 

3.00 

7.00 

loo 

2.03 

6.75 

130 

Average  

4.22 

7 75 

84 

2.80 

6.. 58 

128 

2.56 

6.. 58 

157 

2.87 

6.33 

121 

All  Average 

7.17 

86 

2.80 

7.60 

140 

2.87 

6.80 

140 

3.10 

6.78 

119 

Buij.ktin  326 


51 


Circumference,  New  Brunswick,  1913 


ROW  5 

ROW  6 

ROW  7 

ROW  8 

ROW  9 

ALL  ROWS 

WCB 

W&S 

S 

WNCB 

WCB 

ALL 

TREATMENTS 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

191.3 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

I’er 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Indies  Inches 

Cent 

Indies 

Indies 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches  Cent 

3.75 

7.50 

100 

3.81 

7.25 

90 

3.75 

7.. 50 

100 

4.31 

8.25 

91 

3.87 

8.  .50 

120 

2.43 

6.. 50 

167 

3.75 

7.. 50 

100 

2. no 

9.25 

36.3 

2.18 

7.00 

221 

3.06 

6.50 

112 

2.81 

6.75 

140  1 

i93 

7.’i5 

147 

3. .37 

8.50 

152 

3.18 

7.00 

120 

3.08 

6.83 

122 

3.40 

7.17 

107 

i'.34 

7. .38 

121 

.i'2.3 

8.67 

169 

i’os 

7.. 50 

144 

.3.14 

7.31 

133 

3.81 

6.25 

64 

3.50 

7.25 

107 

.3.. 37 

7.00 

108 

3.. 37 

7.00 

108 

4.00 

7.75 

94 

2.9.3 

6. ’7.5 

130 

3.18 

6.75 

112 

4.00 

7.25 

81 

4.00 

8.50 

11.3 

3.91 

7.00 

79 

2.93 

0.75 

130 

3.. 34 

7.00 

110 

3.69 

7.13 

9.3 

3.69 

7.75 

110 

3.51 

7.17 

104 

3.68 

8.. 50 

131 

3. .37 

7.25 

115 

3.12 

7.50 

140 

4.31 

8.25 

91 

2.. 56 

7.00 

17.3 

3.93 

7.75 

97 

.3.00 

6.. 50 

117 

3.00 

7.00 

133 

3.18 

8.75 

175 

3.62 

8.00 

121 

2.87 

7.00 

144 

2.62 

0.25 

139 

3.. 50 

7.25 

107 

2.75 

7.00 

155 

3.49 

7.75 

122 

3.00 

6.67 

122 

3.21 

7.25 

126 

.^7.5 

8.  .50 

128 

2.98 

7.. 33 

146 

3.16 

7.12 

126 

3.44 

7.22 

110 

3.18 

0.89 

116 

3.28 

7.21 

120 

3.51 

8.18 

1.33 

3.19 

7. .50 

1.35 

.3.22 

7.21 

124 

pRUNiNCx  Experiments  Witpi  Peaches 


Table  34  shows  the  average  per  cent  increase  in  circumference 
according-  to  treatments. 


Tabi^e  34 

Average  Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumeerence  According  to  Treatments 
New  Brunswick,  1913 


variety 

Not 

Dnined 

Winter  | 
Not  Cut 
Back 

1 

Winter 

Cut 

Back 

Winter 

and 

Summer 

Summer 

All 

Per  Cent 

1 Per  Cent 

1 Per  Cent 

i Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Elberta,  

87  1 

IGO  1 

133 

117 

123 

133 

Stump 

93 

94 

130 

109 

104 

Carman,  

84 

127  1 

133 

138 

124 

126 

All,  

SG 

1 

1 

1 137 

1 

1 122 

128 

1 1 

119 

1 

124 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  rank  of  the  varieties  in  this  table  is : 
(i)  Elberta;  (2)  Carman;  (3)  Stump.  The  rank  as  to  total 
circumference  was : (i)  Stump;  (2)  Elberta;  (3)  Carman. 

Actual  and  Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumference  and  Gain  in  Twig 
Grozath  Compared  on  the  Basis  of  Treatments 

The  rank  of  the  various  treatments  for  1912  and  1913,  as  to 
actual  measurement  of  circumference,  compared  with  the  per  cent 
increase  in  circumference,  is  shown  in  table  35. 


TabeE  35 

Reeative  Rank  oe  Treatments,  1912  and  1913,  and  Per  Cent  Increase  in 
Circumeerence  oe  Trunks,  New  Brunswick 


All 

Ell)erta 

1 

Stump 

Carman 

1912 

Per  Cent 
Increase 

OX 

c: 

1913 

Per  Cent 
Increase 

1912 

1913 

Per  Cent 
Increase 

1 

1912 

1913 

Per  Cent  j 

Increase  I 

1 

Not  pruned,  . . 

1 

1 

80 

3 

5 

87 

*1 

*1 

* 

1 

1 

84 

Winter  not  cut 

back,  

2 

2 

137 

1 

1 

160 

3 

4 

93 

2 

3 

127 

Winter  cut 

back,  

3 

3 

122 

4 

2 

1.33 

2 

3 

94 

3 

2 

133 

Winter  and 

summer,  .... 

;■) 

•0 

128 

2 

3 

117 

2 

130 

.0 

.5 

138 

Summer  only, . . 

4 

4 

119 

4 

123 

4 

.3 

109 

4 

4 

124 

* Tlie  measurement 

for 

Stump 

“not 

pruned” 

was 

made 

on  a different 

tree 

each  year. 

BuIvIvETIN  326 


53 


Table  36  shows  the  rank  of  the  various  treatments  for  1912 
and  1913,  as  to  actual  measurement  of  twig  growth,  compared 
with  the  per  cent  gain  in  linear  twig  growth. 

it  will  be  noted  that  here,  as  at  Vineland,  the  treatments  rank 
the  same  when  the  actual  measurements  of  twig  growth  and  cir- 
cumference are  compared,  varieties  being  disregarded.  The 
varieties,  however,  show  differences  in  rank  as  to  treatments 
when  compared  on  this  basis. 


TABrE  36 

REiyATivE  Rank  or  Treatments,  1912  and  1913,  and  Per  Cent  Gain  in 
Twig  Growth,  New  Brunswick 


VARIETY 

All 

Elberta 

Stump 

Carman 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

treatment 

1 1912 

1913 

Cent 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

1912 

1913 

Cent 

1 

Gain 

Gain 

Gain 

Gain 

Not  pruned,  . . 

T“r 

1 

661 

1 

3 

415 

3 

1 

644 

4 

1 

1107 

Winter  not  cut 

back 

2 

3 

622 

2 

1 

732 

4 

5 

874 

2 

4 

662 

Winter  cut 

back 

3 

4 

544 

4 

4 

702 

1 

4 

324 

• 3 

2 

681 

Winter  and 

summer,  . . . 

5 

5 

591 

3 

5 

653 

2 

2* 

350 

5 

5 

732 

Summer  only, . . 

4 

2 

634 

5 

2 

692 

5 

2^ 

572 

1 

3 

434 

* Of  equal  rank  in  1913. 


INCREASE  IN  CIRCUMFERENCE  OE  TREES  OE  VARYING  VIGOR  AT 

VINEUAND 

At  the  end  of  the  first  season,  it  was  found  that  55  trees  were 
below  and  42  trees  were  above  the  average  in  circumference. 
At  the  close  of  the  second  season,  these  same  trees  were  averaged 
in  these  two  groups.  The  computation  showed  that,  while  the 
trees  that  were  in  the  ‘‘above”  class  at  the  end  of  1912  still  had 
the  larger  averages,  the  trees  in  the  “below”  class  in  1912  made 
the  greater  per  cent  increase  in  trunk  circumference,  averaging 
32  per  cent  more  increase.  This  is  regardless  of  variety. 

Table  37  gives  these  data  for  all  three  varieties  combined  and 
for  each  variety.  This  adds  more  evidence  to  that  previously 
given,  to  the  effect  that  trees  that  make  a relatively  small  growth 
one  year  may  make  a relatively  large  growth  the  next  year,  other 
things  being  equal. 


54 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Tabpe  37 

Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumference,  in  1913,  of  Trees  Above  and  Beeow 
THE  Average  in  1912,  Vineeand,  1913 


variety 

BEEOW 

AVERAGE 

ABOVE 

AVERAGE 

No. 

Average 

Circum- 

ference 

1912 

Average 

Circum- 

ference 

1913 

Gain 

No. 

Average 

Circum- 

ference 

1912 

Average 

Circum- 

ference 

1913 

Gain 

Inches 

Inches 

Per  cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per  cent 

All 

. • • 

55 

3.49 

7.73 

121 

42 

4.43 

8.38 

89 

Stump 

18 

3.78 

7.78 

106 

17 

4.55 

8.53 

88 

Carman,  

17 

3.39 

7.86 

132 

19 

4.40 

8.46 

92 

Elberta 

13 

3.26 

7.28 

123 

13 

4.10 

8.10 

98 

Tabee  38 


Comparison  of  Gains  in  Circumference  Between  Groups  of  Trees  of 
Varying  Vigor,  Vineeand,  1913 


SIZE  OF 
TREE 

1 

! No. 

Average 

Circumference 

1912 

Average 

Circumference 

1913 

Actual 

Gain 

Per  Cent 
Gain 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

Inches 

2.12-3.00 

5 

2.65 

7.40 

1 4.75 

179 

3.12 

3 

3.12 

! 8.17 

i 5.05 

! 102 

3.25 

3 

3.25 

, 8.00 

4.75 

146 

3.37 

7 

3.37 

7.53 

4.10 

1 124 

3.50 

G 

3.. 50 

7.92 

4.42 

: 126 

3.62  & 3.66 

6 

3.63 

7.33 

3.77 

106 

3.75 

12 

3.75 

7.83 

4.08 

109 

3.88 

8 

3. .88 

7.88 

4.00 

' 103 

4.00 

8 

4.00 

7.88  j 

3.88 

97 

4.12 

6 

4.12  < 

7.96  ! 

3.84 

93 

4.25 

9 

4.25 

8.81 

4.56 

107 

4.37 

7 

4.37 

8.61 

4.24 

97 

4.50-4.62 

4 

4.56 

8.81 

4.25 

93 

4.75-4.88 

7 

4.81 

8.. 54 

3,73 

78 

5.00-5.25 

6 

5.08 

9.42  1 

4.34  i 

85 

Tabee  39 

Comparison  of  Trees  Above  and  Beeow  tfie  Average  in  Circumference  in 
1912,  New  Brunswick,  1913 


BEEOW 

AVERAGE 

ABOVE 

AVERAGE 

Average 

Average 

Average 

Average 

VARIETY 

Circtim- 

Circum- 

Circum- 

Circum- 

f('renco 

ference 

ference 

ference 

' No.  1912 

1913 

Gain 

No. 

1912 

1913 

Gain 

Trees 

Trees 

Inches 

Inches 

Per  cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Per  cent 

Elberta,  

1 1 2.75 

7.12 

159 

11 

3.63 

7.64 

111 

Stump 

7 3.24 

7.04 

121 

5 

3.92 

7.35 

87 

Carman,  

15  2.78 

6.73 

142 

10 

3.72 

7.70 

107 

All 

35  2.83 

6.59 

145 

27 

3.61 

7.59 

114 

Bulletin  326 


55 


Still  further  substantiating  evidence  is  shown  in  table  38.  The 
grouped  trees  of  the  same  circumference  are  arranged  in  groups 
og  about  Ts  inch  difference,  from  2.12  inches  to  5.25  inches.  The 
per  cent  gain  was  greatest  with  the  smallest  trees.  As  the  trees 
increased  in  circumference,  there  was  a general  dcrease  in  the 
percentage  of  increase. 

INCREASE  IN  circumference  OF  TREES  OF  VARYING  VIGOR  AT 

NEW  BRUNSWICK 

Table  39  shows  the  average  circumference  for  1912  and  1913, 
and  the  per  cent  increase  in  circumference,  for  the  trees  at  New 
Brunswick  that  were  below  the  average  and  those  that  were 
above  the  average  circumference  in  1912.  In  every  case,  the 
trees  that  were  below  the  average  have  made  the  greatest  per 
cent  increase  in  circumference  ; this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
average  girth  in  both  years  is  below  the  average.  Certain  of  the 
individual  trees  in  the  “below”  group  have  made  a growth  that 
would  place  them  above  the  average  in  1913,  but  the  majority 
remain  below. 


Table  40 

Comparison  oe  Trees  oe  Varying  Vigor  on  the  Basis  oe  Increase  in  Cir- 
CUMEERENCE,  New  Brunswick 


Circumference 

No. 

Trees  | 

Average 

Circumference 

1012 

Average 

Circumference 

1013 

Actual 

Gain 

Per  Cent 
Gain 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

2.00-2.50 

7 

2.26 

6.S9 

4.63 

206 

2.51-2.75 

4 

2.6S 

6.81 

4.1:' 

1 55 

2.76-3.00 

13 

2 02 

6.90 

3.  OS 

136 

3.01-3.25 

11 

3.1.5 

7.00 

.3.85 

122 

3.26-3.50 

0 

3.41 

7.36 

3.05 

116 

3.51-3.75 

6 

3.72 

7.58 

3.86 

104 

3.76-4.00 

S 

i 3.00 

7.53 

3.63 

93 

4.01-5.00 

4.43 

S..33 

3.90 

88 

This  fact  is  brought  out  more  clearly  again  in  table  40,  in 
which  is  shown  a tabulation  on  the  basis  of  the  circumference  in 
1912,  in  groups  of  one-half  or  one-fourth  inch  variations.  The 
smallest  trees  showed  the  greatest  per  cent  increase  in  circum- 
ference. xA.s  the  trees  increase  in  size,  the  per  cent  increase  in 
circumference  diminishes. 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


56 

RELATION  OE  INCREASE  IN  TRUNK  CIRCUMFERENCE  TO  INCREASE 
IN  TWIG  GROWTH  AT  VINELAND 

Since  both  twig  growth  and  circumference  are  being  deter- 
mined in  these  experiments,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  any  relation 
that  may  apparently  exist  between  the  two.  Table  41  shows  the 
number  of  inches  of  twig  growth  made  during  1913  per  i inch 
gain  in  circumference  of  the  trunk,  for  each  individual  tree. 

Tabce  41 


Ratio  or  One  Inch  Increase  in  Circumeerence  to  Increase  in  Twig 
Growth,  Vineeand,  1913 


Pruning 

Treatment 

Uou 

1 Variety 

1 Tree  2 

1 

Tree  3 

Tree  4 

Tree  5 

Row 

Average 

1 

Plot 

Average 

Not 

1 

Stump 

925 

1055 

942 

909 

pruned 

2 

Carman,  

127,3 

1861 

618 

572 

970 

3 

Elberta 

940 

Winter  not 

4 

Stump,  

998 

528 

974 

842 

cut  back 

5 

Carman 

906 

484 

702 

938 

749 

0 

1 Elberta,  

1 

1068 

439 

990 

646 

781 

784 

Summer 

; 7 

1 

1 Stump,  

911 

937 

1 1215 

1016 

8 

1 Carman 

659 

836 

1 1394 

938 

9 

1 Elberta 

1 

1211 

596 

1022 

1 599 

1 853 

924 

Winter  and 

10 

Stump  

1211 

810 

1358 

895 

1078 

summer 

11 

Carman,  

1053 

788 

975 

1 986 

956 

12 

1 Elberta,  

714 

691 

788 

971 

Winter  cut 

1.3 

Stump,  

1269 

981 

1223 

1104 

1147 

back 

14 

Carman,  

876 

805  j 

1 690 

795 

15 

1 

Elberta,  

1 

786 

547 

811  1 

731 

715 

879 

Winter  not 

10  I 

1 

Stump 

1044 

1283 

1359 

1206 

cut  back 

17  1 

Carman 

1036 

710 

600 

439 

706 

18  1 

1 

1 Elberta,  

501 

688 

583 

874 

Not  pruned 

1 

10  1 

Slump,  

1179 

1265 

737 

1030 

20  i 

Carman,  

992 

951 

972 

i 

iil  1 

I 

Elberta,  

1005 

Winter  and  | 

1 

22 

Stump 

1527 

1098 

1146 

1285 

1270 

summer 

2.3  1 

Carman,  

1273 

849 

912 

990  1 

1013 

24  ! 

I 

Elberta 

1128 

1257 

1750  1 

1325 

lisi 

Winter  cut 

1 

Stump 

1061 

678 

1.385 

782 

992 

1)ack 

20 

Carman,  

1318 

621 

1191 

1048 

1001 

1 

27  1 
1 

Elberta,  

1205 

397 

765 

1249 

885 

960 

Summer  j 

1 

28  1 

Stump,  

10.34 

1,306 

1107 

1180 

1172 

20  1 

Carman 

1666 

826 

1289  1 

866  1 

1142  1 

2.0  1 
1 

Elberta,  

970  j 

962  1 

906  1 

1 

1119 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  average  growth  per  i inch  gain  in 
circumference  for  all  the  trees  was  960  inches.  The  range,  how- 
ever, was  from  397  an  1861  inches.  The  average  Stump  was 
1069  inches,  for  Carman  931  inches  and  for  Elberta  853  inches. 
Some  variation  lietween  varieties  is  to  be  expected,  of  course. 

There  is  great  variation,  however,  between  different  individuals 
of  the  same  variety.  The  range  in  Stump  was  from  528  (Row  4, 


BuIvIvKTIN  326 


57 


Tree  2)  to  1527  inches  (Row  22,  Tree  2).  The  range  in  Carman 
was  from  484  (Row  5,  Tree  3)  to  1861  inches  (Row  2,  Tree  3). 
The  range  in  Elberta  was  from  397  (Row  27,  Tree  3)  to  1750 
inches  (Row  24,  Tree  5). 

In  general,  the  widest  ratio  occurred  with  trees  which  made 
a very  large  growth.  For  example,  Row  26,  Tree  2,  with  a total 
growth  of  6088  inches,  has  a ratio  of  twig  growth  to  circum- 
ference of  1318  inches.  Row  29,  Tree  2,  with  a total  twig  growth 
of  6883  inches,  has  a ratio  of  1666  inches.  In  contrast  to  this, 
Row  6,  Tree  3,  with  a twig  growth  of  1466  inches,  has  a ratio  of 
509  inches,  and  Row  17,  Tree  5,  with  a total  growth  of  1045 
inches,  has  a ratio  of  349  inches.  It  should  be  noted,  however, 
that  some  trees  which  made  a large  growth  have  a relatively  low 
ratio.  Row  14,  Tree  4,  made  a growth  of  5137  inches  and  has  a 
ratio  of  805  inches.  Row  20,  Tree  5,  made  a growth  of  4515 
inches  and  has  a ratio  of  951  inches.  Some  trees  which  madq 
a relatively  small  growth  also  have  a relatively  wide  ratio.  For 
example,  Kovj  2,  Tree  3,  made  a total  gro\vth  of  only  2569 
inches  and  yet  had  a ratio  of  1861  inches.  Row  7,  Tree  5,  made 
a growth  of  3793  inches  and  has  a ratio  of  1215  inches. 

There  might  be  several  factors  which  would  result  in  a differ- 
ent ratio  between  trees  making  about  the  same  amount  of  twig 
growth,  especially  in  a pruning  experiment.  It  is  a well  known 
fact  that,  if  one  desires  to  develop  a strong,  vigorous  trunk  on 
a young  shade  tree,  the  side  branches,  especially  those  low  on 
the  trunk,  should  be  allowed  to  develop  for  a time.  Or,  in 
other  words,  the  development  of  branches  on  the  trunk  tends  to 
make  it  larger  in  circumference  than  if  they  are  kept  pruned  off. 
A peach  tree  which  develops  one  or  two  large  branches  low 
down  on  the  trunk  might  make  a relatively  large  gain  in  circum- 
ference in  comparison  with  a tree  having  a longer  trunk  and 
whose  twig  growth  is  made  in  an  upward  direction.  It  might 
be  expected  also  that  the  removal  of  suckers  and  shoots  from 
the  trunk  of  a tree  in  summer  pruning  would  tend  to  make  a 
wide  ratio  in  comparison  with  any  treatment  which  allowed  such 
growths  to  continue  during  the  season. 

Some  indication  of  this  occurs  in  the  results  for  1913,  since 
the  summer-pruned  treatments  generally  show  a wide  ratio. 
These  trees  also  made  a relatively  large  average  twig  growth,  so 
that  this  interpretation  is  not  clearly  demonstrated. 


PruninCx  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Relation  of  One  Inch  Increase  in  Circumference  to  Increase  in 
Tzvig  Grozvth  by  Treatments 


Where  all  varieties  are  averaged  the  ‘'summer  and  winter” 
treatment  shows  the  largest  ratio,  1088.  The  “summer  only” 
treatment  is  second  with  a ratio  of  1016.  The  smallest  ratio  is 
shown  bv  the  “winter  not  cut  back”  treatment,  being  822.  The 
“winter  cut  back”  is  the  next  larger  with  a ratio  of  971. 

Table  42.  Ratio  of  One  Inch  Increase  in  Circumference  to 


NOT  PRUNED 


WINTER  NOT  CUT  BACK 


SUMMER 


VARIETY  ' 

Plot 

No.  Trees 

Average 

Growth 

Average 

Increase 

Circninference 

Ratio 

0 

No.  Trees 

Average 

Growth 

Average 

Increase 

Circninference 

Ratio 

Plot 

No.  Trees 

Average 

Growth 

Average 

Increase 

Circumference 

Ratio 

1 

1 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

All 

1 

7 

3359 

3.. 57 

940 

2 

11 

3367 

1 3.66 

784 

3 

10 

3478 

3.77 

924 

7 

5 

4523 

4.50 

1005 

0 

9 

3388 

1 3.88 

874 

10 

10 

4818 

4.30 

1119 

Total 

12 

3844 

4.06 

971 

20 

3377 

1 4.11 

822 

20 

4148 

4.04 

1016 

Stump,  ... 

1 

3 

3672 

4.04 

907 

2 

3 

3543 

1 4.21 

842 

3 

.3 

3382 

3.33 

1016 

7 

I 3 

1 

43.37 

4.21 

1030 

6 

3 

4825 

1 4.00 

1206 

10 

4 

4945 

4.22 

1172 

Tolal 

1 

1 G 

1 

4004 

4.12 

970 

6 

4184 

1 4.12 

1 1020 

1 

7 

4285 

3.94 

1 

1114 

Carman,  . 

1 

1 4 

3124 

3.22 

970 

2 

4 

3429 

1 4.98 

748 

3 

3 

.3947 

1 

1 4.21 

938 

7 

1 2 

1 

4802 

4.92 

972 

6 

4 

2802 

1 3.06 

766 

10 

4 

5074 

4.44 

1142 

Total 

1 « 

1 

3683 

3.80 

971 

8 

.3265 

1 4.32 

1 756 

1 

7 

4591 

4.34 

1058 

Elberta, 

1 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2874 

1 3.68 

I 

1 781 

3 

4 

.3199 

3.75 

853 

1 . . . i 

0 

2 

2407 

1 4.13 

1 583 

10 

40.50 

4.20 

964 

Total 

1 i 

1 1 

6 

2718 

1 3.83 

1 

1 

1 710 

6 

3483 

3.89 

852 

If  we  make  comparisons  between  treatments  on  the  basis  of 
variety,  we  note  that  the  widest  ratio  and  the  second  widest 
occur  in  the  “winter  and  summer”  and  the  “summer  only”  treat- 
ments in  the  case  of  Stum])  and  Elberta.  With  the  variety  of 
Carman,  the  “summer”  treatment  ranks  first,  with  “winter  and 
summer”  a close  second.  The  lowest  ratio  occurs  in  the  “winter 
not  cut  back”  treatment  in  the  case  of  Carman  and  Elberta,  and 
in  the  “not  pruned”  treatment  with  Stump.  Since  all  growing 


Bulletin  326 


59 


shoots  and  suckers  were  removed  from  the  trunks  in  the  summer- 
pruned  treatment,  we  might  expect  them  to  show  the  widest 
ratio. 

The  average  gain  in  inches  of  twig  growth  per  inch  in  circum- 
ference for  all  varieties  was  960.  The  average  for  Stump  was 
1069,  the  average  for  Carman,  931,  and  the  average  for  Elberta, 
853.  This  indicates  a considerable  difference  between  the  vari- 
eties Stump  and  Elberta. 


Increase  in  Twig  Growth  According  to  Treatments,  Vineland 


SUMMER  AND  WINTER 

WINTER  CUT  BACK 

ALL 

1 Plot 

No.  Trees 

Average 

Growth 

! Average  | 

Increase  : 

Circnniference 

Ratio 

1 Plot  1 

1 

No.  Trees 

Average 

Growth 

Average 

Increase 

Circumference 

Ratio 

No.  Trees 

Average 

Growth 

Average 

Increase 

Circumference 

Ratio 

1 1 
1 

Inches 

Inches 

1 

1 1 

1 

Inches 

1 

1 Inches 

1 

Inches 

Inches 

4 1 

10 

3873 

3.99 

971 

.5  i 

1 n 1 

.3787 

4.31 

879 

8 1 
1 

' 11 

3188 

3.55  1 

I 

1181 

9 

12  1 

1 

4508 

4.69 

966 

...1 

1 

21 

4038 

1 

3.75  1 

1088 

1 

23  1 

1 

4168 

4.50 

1 

924 

96 

3929 

4.09 

960 

4 1 

4 

4.347  1 

1 4.03 

1078 

5 

i 

4 ! 

4375  1 

1 

3.82  1 

1145 

8 1 

4 

4286  1 

1 

! 3.37 

1260 

9 1 

4 1 

1 

4550 

1 4.59  1 

1 

1 992 

8 

1 

4316  1 

I 

1 3.70 

1200 

1 

8 1 
1 

4463 

1 

4.20  1 

1 

I 

1061 

I 

35 

1 

4265  1 

3.99 

1069 

4 

4 

3709 

1 3.88 

956 

5 

1 

3 1 

3876 

1 

4.88 

I 

1 795 

1 

1 

8 

I 4 

3961 

1 3.91 

1 

1013 

9 

4 1 

1 

51.32 

5.13 

1 1001 

1 

1 8 

3835 

1 

1 3.89 

1 

1 986 

1 

7 1 
1 

4595 

5.02 

916 

36 

.3978 

4.28 

931 

4 

1 2 

3254 

1 

1 4.13 

788 

.5 

4,' 

31.31 

4.38 

715 

8 

1 3 

4361 

1 3.29 

1 

1325 

9 

1 4 1 

1 1 

3841 

4.35 

864 

1 

5 

3918 

1 

1 3.63 

1079 

1 1 
1 8 1 

3486 

4.36 

1 799 

25 

.3.387  1 

I 3.98 

853 

The  averages  of  the  various  varieties,  however,  do  not  show 
the  range  of  variation  in  the  ratio  of  twig  growth  to  circum- 
ference. If  we  examine  the  results  on  the  basis  of  each  individual 
tree  we  will  note  that  the  range  in  twig  growth  per  inch  of  cir- 
cunTference  varies  from  369  to  1230  inches  with  Stump,  from 
304  to  1411  inches  with  Carman,  "and  from  266  to  1485  inches 
with  Elberta,  which  is  also  the  extreme  for  all  varieties. 


6o  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  the  relation  between  a large  amount  of 
twig  growth  and  the  size  of  the  ratio.  In  general,  a large  amount 
of  twig  growth  per  tree  also  indicates  a wide  ratio  of  growth  per 
I inch  increase  in  trunk  circumference.  For  example,  Row  2, 
Tree  2,  with  a total  growth  of  5728  inches,  had  a ratio  of  1130. 
Row  16,  Tree  4,  with  a growth  of  5778  inches,  had  a ratio  of 
1059.  In  contrast  to  these  Row  2,  Tree  4,  with  a total  growth  of 
2627  inches,  had  a ratio  of  385,  and  Row  10,  Tree  3,  with  a 
growth  of  2832  inches,  had  a ratio  of  644.  Yet,  when  we  note 
the  behavior  of  many  individual  trees  it  is  evident  that  some 
trees  that  made  a very  large  total  twig  growth  had  a relatively 
low  ratio.  For  example.  Row  26,  Tree  3,  made  a growth  of  4189 
inches,  but  had  a ratio  of  846.  In  other  words,  two  trees  might 
show  an  inch  gain  in  circumference  and  yet  vary  greatly  in  the 
total  amount  of  twig  growth  made.  This  suggests  that  the 
character  and  location  of  the  new  twig  growth  is  a factor  in  the 
relation  of  twig  growth  to  gain  in  circumference  of  the  trunk. 

The  ratio  between  the  number  of  inches  of  twig  growdh  and 
the  weight  of  the  twigs  for  any  given  variety  is  probably  fairly 
constant  where  a large  amount  is  measured  and  w^eighed.  No 
weights  were  taken  of  wood  growth  pruned  off  during  the  first 
few  years  of  the  experiment,  but  this  factor  is  to  be  checked  in 
later  years. 

It  is  quite  probable,  too,  that  if  the  branches  that  are  low  down 
on  the  trunk  of  the  tree  make  a considerable  growth,  the  ratio 
of  increase  in  trunk  circumference  to  increase  in  twig  growth 
will  be  narrower  than  if  most  of  the  growth  is  made  by  branches 
a considerable  distance  from  the  ground.  A study  of  the  differ- 
ent ])runing  treatments  furnishes  some  evidence  on  this  point. 
d'a1)le  42  gives  the  ratios  lietween  twig  growth  and  i inch  gain 
in  circumference  of  trunks  for  the  various  pruning  treatments. 

RE-EATION  OE  INCREASE  IN  TRUNK  CIRCUMEERENCE  TO  INCREASE 
IN  TWIG  GROWTH,  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK 

'file  ratio  of  the  gain  in  inches  of  twig  growth  to  each  inch 
increase  in  circumference  is  shown  in  table  43.  The  average 
ratio  for  all  varieties  was  738,  as  compared  with  960  at  Vineland, 
d'be  ratio  for  Stum])  was  822  at  New  Brunswick  and  1069  at 


BuIvLETIN  326 


61 


Vineland.  Carman  gave  a ratio  of  744  at  New  Brunswick  and 
931  at  Vineland,  and  Elberta  699  and  853,  respectively.  These 
ratios  are  interesting.  It  was  noted  previously  that  the  average 
amount  of  twig  growth  made  by  the  trees  at  New  Brunswick 
was  considerably  less  than  that  made  at  Vineland.  Nevertheless, 
the  ratios  apparently  indicate  a definite  relation  between  the 
amount  of  twig  growth  and  the  increase  in  trunk  circumference. 


Tabi^e  43 

Ratio  oe  One  Inch  Increase  in  Circumeerence  to  Increase  in  Twig 
Growth,  New  Brunswick 


1 

1 

|Row  1 

1 

Row  2 

Row  3 

Row  4 

Row  5 

Row  61  Row  7 

Row  8 

Row  9 

All 

Rows 

variety 

All 

Tree 

Treat- 

No. 

NP 

WNCB 

W&S 

1 

S 

WCB 

W&S 

S 

WNCB 

WCB 

1 

ments 

Elberta 

1 

656 

785 

810 

704 

730 

792 

10.30 

922 

2 

828 

752 

526 

770 

362 

838 

600 

527 

3 

4.30 

622 

844 

718 

596 

668 

863 

687 

4 

720 

Average,  . . . 

828 

606 

632 

810 

584 

719 

726 

786 

711 

699 

Stump 

4 

735 

690 

866 

726 

746 

5 

65.3 

1035 

785 

710 

868 

900 

1116 

Average,  . . . 

653 

867 

748 

710 

867 

809 

950 

822 

Carman 

6 

398 

578 

589 

746 

900 

849 

978 

638 

7 

1223  1 

1172 

463 

960 

784 

688 

704 

695 

959 

8 

9.54  1 

514 

753 

838 

544 

569 

9.35 

55.3 

Average,  . . . 

1099 

620 

603 

736 

692 

723 

828 

812 

726 

744 

All 

Average,  . . . 

1016 

612 

622 

798 

662 

720 

807 

1 

799 

1 

774 

1 

7.38 

The  evidence  at  New  Brunswick  also  points  to  the  fact  that 
in  general  the  trees  which  made  the  largest  twig  growth  also 
gave  the  largest  ratio  to  increase  in  circumference.  Row  i.  Tree 
7,  made  a growth  of  4670  inches,  a ratio  of  1223  ; Row  8,  Tree  i, 
made  a growth  of  4060^  inches,  a ratio  of  1030.  In  contrast  to 
these,  Row  8,  Tree  2,  made  a growth  of  4347  inches,  a ratio  of 
600. 

When  these  ratios  are  compared  on  a basis  of  treatment  (table 
44)  it  is  found  that  the  “not  pruned”  treatment  has  the  widest 
average  ratio,  while  at  Vineland  that  of  the  “not  pruned”  was 
one  of  the  lowest.  It  was  suggested  at  the  beginning  that  the 
location  of  this  plot  at  the  College  Earm  might  have  some  influ- 
ence on  the  growth. 


62 


Pruning  Expe:riments  With  Pkache^s 


Excluding  this  treatment,  the  “summer  only”  treatment  has 
the  widest  ratio  for  all,  regardless  of  variety  and  for  each 
variety.  At  Vineland,  the  “summer  only”  treatment  ranked 
second  for  all,  variety  disregarded  and  for  Elberta  alone,  and 
first  in  the  case  of  Carman.  On  the  other  hand,  the  “summer 
and  winter”  treatment  at  Vineland  ranked  first  for  all,  disre- 
garding varieties,  as  well  as  for  Stump  and  Elberta,  and  second 
for  Carman.  At  New  Brunswick  this  treatment  is  fifth  when  the 
varieties  are  considered  together,  and  also  in  the  case  of  Carman,, 
and  fourth  in  the  case  of  Elberta  and  Stump. 


Tabi,e  44 

Ratio  or  One  Inch  Increase  in  Circumeerence  to  Increase  in  Twig 
Growth  by  Treatments,  New  Brunswick 


variety 

NP 

WNCB 

WCB 

1 

W&S 

1 S 

ALL 

Elberta,  

828 

693 

653 

674 

776 

699 

Stump 

809 

854 

680 

867 

822 

Carman 

1099 

709 

710 

660 

786 

744 

All 1 

1016  1 

1 

712  1 

1 

722  1 

1 1 

669  1 

804  1 

1 1 

738 

I 1 

DORMANT  SEASON  PRUNING  AT  VINEUAND,  MARCH,  I914 

Trees  receiving  the  “winter  and  not  cut  back,”  the  “winter  cut 
back”  and  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatments  were  pruned 
during  March,  1914.  The  pruning  treatments  were  carried  out 
as  planned  and  outlined  on  page  6.  Table  45  shows  the  amount 
of  total  growth  made  by  each  tree,  the  amount  pruned  off,  and 
the  percentage  of  total  growth  pruned  off.  The  summer  prunings 
are  included  in  the  totals  of  amount  of  growth  pruned  off  in  the 
case  of  Plots  3,  4,  8 and  10. 

Table  46  shows  the  average  amount  of  growth  made  by  each 
plot  and  treatment,  and  the  amount  and  percentage  of  twig 
growth  pruned  off.  The  average  amount  of  growth  pruned  off 
from  each  tree,  regardless  of  variety  and  treatment,  was  2243 
inches  or  56  per  cent.  This  varies  somewhat  with  varieties  as 
well  as  with  treatments  as  follows:  Sturnp'  2576  inches,  or  59 
per  cent;  Carman  2146  inches,  or  53  per  cent;  and  Elberta  2009 
inches,  or  56  per  cent.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  amount  of 
pruning  was  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  twig  growth.  Some 
variation  is  also  due  to  the  habit  of  growth  of  the  variety.  Stump 


Tabi,e  45 

Tabulation  of  Pruning,  Including  Summer  Pruning,  Vineland,  1913 


Bulletin  326 


63 


s 

0 

< 

pannaj 
:jaao  aoj 

ID 

Tjt 

»D 

00 

CD 

§ 

t- 

a 

> 

< 

paanaj 

Inches 

1432 

s 

iH 

2135 

1 2559 

1892  1 

1 

1 2715  ' 

08T8  1 

1 2240  1 

Eh 

0 

(U 

q:^.VLOJO 

1 

Inches 

3367 

CD 

CO 

CD 

CO 

1 

3873 

1 

CD 

05 

CD 

CO 

3648 

1 

a 

00 

g 

iH 

00 

& 

pannjd 
;aao  aaj 

CD  00  l« 
Ti<eoTjH 

« eoo 

Tjt  ■<l<  m 

09  1 

Lf 

09 

05  © CO 
© © t- 

1H  CO  © 

»o  © © 

c8  © S 

t-  iH  »D 
t- 1-© 

MtpM 

lDTt<  Tf 

0 

< 

pannaa 

1 Inches  1 

1 1627  1 

1 1423  I 

1 1294 

1416 
1875  1 
1611 

2604 

1746 

1956 

1 2999 

1 2332  1 

1 2289  1 

1 2429 

1 1476  1 

1732  1 

1 

1 2932 

^466 

' 2748 

1 3485  i 

1 3625  1 

I 2480  1 

2589 

2259  1 

1871  1 

<1 

q^MOJO 

1 

Inches 
3543  1 
3729 
2874 

3382  1 

4346  1 

3199  1 

1 

4347 

3709 

3254 

1 

4375  1 

3879  1 

3131  1 

4796  1 

2802  1 

3248  1 

1 

4286  1 

1 3961  I 

4329  1 

4550 

5132 

3841 

4945 

5074 

4414 

pannja 
;aao  JOJ 

1 

1 42 

1 41 

1 35 

OONO 

T}(  »£5  S 

52 

40 

53 

Tj(  Tj^  © 

© CO  © 

1 55 

69 

1 42 

>H  >-l  © 
© ID  TjH 

»D  © 00 
t-  t-  kD 

s 

»o 

P3 

paunja 

1 Inches 

1571 

1526 

963 

2098 

1 1545 

1 1598  1 

2903 

909 

1676 

1 2041  1 

719  I 

1 1047 

2530 

1898 

1914 

1 

2729 

3631 

1 3051 

2194 

1810 

1 1575 

6061  i 

qjAiOJO 

Inches 

3780 

3637 

2746 

3793 

5578 

2396 

4026 

3825 

3027 

4559 

2676 

2558 

3737 

1045 

2498 

4177 

3714 

I 4166 

3618 

4592  1 

5311  1 

4603  1 

4010  1 

4570  1 

E 

CD 

CO 

paunja 
;uao  jaa 

• W(S5 

• Til  tH 

iH  MO 

« Tjf  ^ 

M CD  CO 
t-  10  CO 

SS  : 

0>(M  CD 
b-  t-  CD 

i-  © 
00  l-  ID 

56 

1 34 

1 43 

1 

iH 

H 

1^ 

P3 

gH 

paunja 

1 

Inches i 

1601  1 

2084 

1105 

2314 

1333 

4527  ' 

2315  1 

2314  1 

1 

3495 
3583  1 
3382 

\ 3710  i 

1 1626  1 

I ■■■■, 

3153  i 

2555  1 

2909 

1 

5954  1 

4376  1 

1960  ' 

1 1 

2935  1 
1 1880  1 
1 1528  1 

I 

1 2756  1 

1 1 

q^MOJO 

1 

Inches 

3775 

4208 

3623 

5543 

3324 

6288 

4144 

3481 

4586 

5137 

3956 

5778 
2499  1 

1 

4010 
3539  1 
4402 

7108 

5657 

3350 

5233  1 

5480 
3530  1 

s 

paunja 
;uao  jaa 

S S w 

OOTt(  CD 

TH  Tf 

CO  • 

,H  © © 

© © »o 

05  © Tj( 

M TJ1  ID 

M CO  0: 
CD  10  ID 

© t-  © 
©©© 

© 00  tW 

ID  TJH  4 

ID 

M 

H 

paunja 

t 

Inches 

1162 

563 

733 

1324  1 

1197  1 

1243  1 

1250  1 

923  i 

....  1 

2089 

2504 

1566 

1 1441 

1 1194 

1 1247 

2116 

1782 

2492 

1952 

2796 

1293 

2590  1 
1878  1 
1247  1 

1 1591  j 

qjMOJO 

1 

Inches 

2110 

1 2781 

1466 

2731 

2715 

2233 

2832 

2653 

3431 
[ 3825 

2665  ’ 

1 

IIS 

3428  ' 

3182  ' 

4235 

2964 
4189  I 
1885 

4899 
3922  1 
2810  1 

3080  1 

' 1 

paunja 
:juao  jaa 

45 

42 

45 

-.53  iS 

8£§  : 

- CO 
t-  • t- 

Tl<  t-  © 

»D  Tj(  »0 

ri  t-  M 

t-  © 00 

CD  ID 
t-  CD  t- 

MO© 

ID  »D  TjH 

00 

ID 

DREE  2 

paunja 

Inches 

2149 

2003 

1396 

....  1 

1101  1 

2680 

2542  ! 

2240 

3507 

2530  1 

1 2522 

2365  1 
2902  I 

3930  1 

3630  1 

3676  1 

3306 

1 3696 

1 3615 

2636  ' 

3469  1 

3132 

1 1 

1 2811 

1 1 

q^MOJO 

1 

Inches 

4739 

4721 

3076 

. CO  Tti 

4240 

4213 

^ • CO 

M • Tt< 

a • CO 

• CO 

4707 

1 5060  1 

1 

5530 

5410 

4514 

4511 

6088 

4819 

5046 

6883 

6746 

4852 

Row 

»OCD 

t-000 

O1HM 
1-1  rH 

CO  ^ ID 

© 00 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

1 

, 

PLOT 

(N 

CO* 

lO 

CO 

00“ 

Ci 

c 

Average,  . , 

Tabi,e  46 

Tabulation  oe  Pruning,  Including  Summer  Pruning,  According  to  Treatments,  Vineland,  1913 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


O'? 


p 'p 

a; 

^ 9 


I OS  CP 
1 CD 


,-1  iH  CO  00  cs  o 

10  ^00  oboOoo 

COGOt-  OS  t-  (N  T+l  CO 

tHiNOI  iNOKN 


10  IN  CO  Tti  00 

N fO  OS  T-l  00  Tti 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


CD  CD  iH  N I-: 

t-lOCD  -^CDr-l  COO-jl'~ 

QONO  CO-dO 

iHiNN  t-HNN  NctCO 


O^OSN  10  COrtIO  OSrHg 

D3  N O CD  t)h  b- r-l  O CD  CO 

lyt-oo  (N  coot-  t-osoo 

fl  CO  N CO  Ti<io-^  eocoM 


CD  OS  CD 
tH  GO  C» 
IQ  O 
tH  04  04 


'T  u 
cs  ID  I' 


O CO  CD 
CD  OS  t- 
N N 04 


M CO 
TJH  TJH 


40  O eo 
t-  40  CD 
CO  LO  ni 
T}4  tJH  TtH 


OJ  t-  00  00  CD  rH  CO 

^ CD  tP  O CD  i-l  CD 

CJ  CO  ci  40  CD  00  04 

a CO  CO  eo  CO 


CO  N t-  CD  00  fO 

I-  OS  OS  O CD 

GO  iH  P CD  40  ^ 

CO  ■'^1  ^ CO  'O' 


u E-t 


-M  O 

a a 


•EH 

(14 

■Jh  ^ 

o a 


rfioo  40  40  04  OSQiH  40 

40  ”+40  C0.H4O  40000S  rW 

CDNOS  1-1  I- 4OtH00  64 

.hNt-H  D4NN  NCON  04 


BuIvIvETIN  326  65 

produces  many  twigs  while  Carman  develops  comparatively  few. 
An  analysis  of  the  results  according  to  treatments  shows  the 
following  facts. 

The  “winter  cut  back”  treatment  resulted  in  the  most  severe 
pruning  with  an  average  cut  in  twig  growth  of  2891  inches,  or 
69  per  cent.  The  “winter  and  summer”  treatment  was  second 
with  an  average  total  twig  growth  removed  of  2452  inches,  or 
61  per  cent.  The  “winter  not  cut  back”  was  third  in  the  propor- 
tion pruned  off  with  47  per  cent,  but  was  last  in  amount  pruned 
off  with  a total  of  1662  inches.  The  “summer  only”  treatment 
was  last  in  the  proportion  pruned  off  with  46  per  cent,  but  third 
in  amount  pruned  off,  or  1959  inches.  One  principal  object  of 
the  summer  pruning  was  to  reduce  the  amount  of  dormant- 
season  pruning.  It  may  be  noted  that  in  the  “summer  and 
winter  treatment”  the  winter  pruning  amounted  to  an  average  of 
1194  inches,  while  the  winter  pruning  in  the  “winter-pruned  and 
cut  back”  treatment  amounted  to  an  average  of  2891  inches.  The 
summer  pruning  apparently  reduced  the  winter  pruning  about 
one-half. 

The  pruning  was  done  with  an  ideal  in  mind  of  the  type  of 
pruning  to  be  developed,  so  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  per- 
centages show  that  about  one-half  to  two-thirds  of  the  previous 
season’s  wood  growth  was  actually  removed.  No  conclusions 
are  drawn  at  this  time  as  to  the  advisability  of  such  a practice, 
however. 

PER  CENT  OE  GROWTH  REMOVED  BY  THINNING  AND  BY  “CUTTING 
back”  in  PRUNING  TREATMENTS  “WINTER  CUT  BACK” 

AND  “summer  and  WINTER”  AT  VINEUAND 

In  order  to  show  what  proportion  of  the  growth  removed  in 
pruning  was  done  in  the  “cutting  back”  process  in  the  above- 
mentioned  treatments,  measurements  were  made  of  the  wood 
removed  in  thinning  and  also  of  the  “clippings.”  Table  47  gives 
the  details  of  these  measurements  for  each  individual  tree. 

The  largest  total  amount  of  clippings  made  from  any  Stump 
tree  in  the  “winter  and  summer  treatment”  was  629  inches,  while 
the  smallest  amount  was  124  inches.  The  largest  total  amount 


WINTER  AND  SUMMER  WINTER  AND  SUMMER 


66 


o 

D 

a 

< 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


d eo 
a M 

a fe 

^ I 

O Ph 


eo  CO  <N  M 05  TiH 

05  05  lO  Tti  o IN 
^ CD  CO  lo  I-  CO 


IjHt-CDCON^ 


s CO  lO  t-  CD,  lO  05 


CC  CO  rH  l-O  t--  05  05 

_ I CD  I ■ " ■ 

^ 05  »0 


S CO  Tti  t-  LO 
d ^ N CO  t-  05 
T)  N r-l  N r-l  tH 


W CD  IN  00  CO 
41  Tt<  CO  05  rH  I’ 
^ CO  rH  CO  O 
4 (N  tH  >H  T-l 


Total 

Inches 

Tt<  © ID 
»0  iH  CO 
rt<  Tt<  © 

Clipped 

Inches 

174 

65 

120 

1 

Thinned 

Inches 

1280 

351 

816 

1 

§ H 
U 


rt  lO  CO  N --I  O < 
* y N T}I  CD  I-  O 1 

H 


S © Tjl  CO  CD  CO  05 

•g  Jh  In  N N S 
a 


S CD  t-  Q 00  © 
CD  T-H  « CO  © 
W ri  N >0  »-l  © lO 

P d r-l  CO  tH  r-( 


H O' 


s © 'lt<  © 
S © I-  N 
•§(N  rH  © 


t-  © 

ira  CO 
N CC 


© CO  © CO  t-H 
I 4 4 O lO 


-tJOi 


Elberta 

Row  27 

Total 

Inches 

3615 

1293 

1960 

3051 

2480 

Clipped 

Inches 

274 

153 

182 

306 

229 

1 

Thinned 

Inches 

3341 

1140 

1778 

2745 

2251 

Carman 

Row  26 

Total 

Inches 

3696 

2796 

4376 

3631 

3625 

3196 

Clipped 

Inches 

426 

170 

231 

386 

303 

262 

Thinned 

Inches 

3270 

2626 

4145 

3245 

3322  1 

2935  1 

1 

Stump 

Row  25 

Total 

Inches 

1 3306 

1 1952 

5954 

1 2729 

3485 

Clipped 

Inches 

203 

230  1 

341 

242 

254 

Thinned 

Inches 

3103 

1722 

5613 

2487 

3231 

s I 

O W 


5 I 

02  tf 


Total 

Inches 

2530 

1566 

3382 

1 1676 

2289 

Clipped 

Inches 

184 

83 

119 

288 

169 

Thinned 

Inches 

2346 

1483 

3263 

1388 

2120 

Total 

Inches 

2504 

3583 

909 

1 2332 

2559  1 
1 ‘ 

Clipped 

Inches 

204 
187 
170 
187  I 
191 

Thinned 

Inches 

2300 
3396  1 
! 739 

1 2145 

2368  1 

Total  ; 

1 

Inches 

3507 

2089 

3495 

2903 

2999 

Clipped 

Inches 

339 

147 

155 

224 

216 

. . 1 

Thinned 

Inches 
3168 
1942 
3340 
2679 
2782  1 

N M ID 


BuIvIvETIN  326 


67 


of  clippings  made  from  any  Carman  tree  in  the  same  treatment 
was  293  inches  and  the  smallest  no,  and  the  largest  total 
amount  from  an  Elberta  was  298  and  the  smallest  65  inches. 

The  largest  total  amount  of  clippings  made  from  any  Stump 
tree  in  the  “winter  cut  back”  treatment  was  341  inches  and  the 
smallest  147  inches.  The  largest  total  amount  of  clippings  made 
from  any  Carman  tree  in  the  same  treatment  was  426  inches  and 
the  smallest  170  inches.  The  largest  total  amount  of  clippings 
made  from  any  Elberta  tree  in  this  treatment  was  306  inches 
and  the  smallest  83  inches. 

Tabi.e  48 

Summary  or  Pruning:  Amounts  Thinned  and  Amounts  Cut  Back 
According  to  Treatments 
Vineeand,  1913 


WINTER  and  summer*  WINTER  CUT  BACK 


1 

VARIETY  j Total 

Thinned 

Clipped 

1 

Total]  Thinned 

1 

Checked 

1 Inches 

1 

Inches 

Per  cent 

Inches 

1 

|per  cent 

1 

Inches]  Inches 

|Per  cent 

Inches 

Per  cent 

1 

Stump,  1 1584 

1 

1322 

83 

1 

262 

1 

17 

3^2 

1 3007 

93 

235 

7 

1 

Carman | 1111 

1 

931 

84 

179 

16 

3091  i 2817 

92 

1 

253 

8 

1 

Elberta j 1326 

1155 

87 

171 

13 

2384 

2186 

1 

92 

199 

8 

1 

All,  1 1341  ’ 

I 1 

1 1134 

1 

85 

1 

1 207 

1 

1 15 

2891 

2663 

92 

1 

228 

8 

* This  refers  only  to  the  pruning  which  was  done  in  the  winter. 


The  average  amount  of  growth  thinned  out  and  “cut  back”  by 
treatment  in  the  winter  pruning  is  given  in  table  48.  The  per- 
centage of  the  twig  growth  which  was  removed  in  the  “cutting 
back”  process  in  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatments,  regardless 
of  variety,  was  15  per  cent,  while  in  the  “winter  cut  back”  treat- 
ments it  was  8 per  cent.  The  greater  percentage  of  clipping  in 
the  former  treatment  is  probably  due  to  the  increased  number  of 
shoots  developed  as  a result  of  the  summer  pinching.  The 
“winter  cut  back”  treatment  generally  requires  rather  severe  thin- 
ning previous  to  clipping  and  this  further  reduces  the  number 
of  shoots  to  be  so  treated.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  actual 
amount  of  twig  growth  removed  in  the  “cutting  back”  process 
in  these  experiments  has  not  been  very  great  thus  far. 


68 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


EEEECT  OE  SUMMER  PRUNING  DURING  I913  UPON  TOTAE  GROWTH 

AT  VINEEAND 

There  are  no  indications  that  the  summer  pruning  as  practiced 
in  these  experiments  in  1913  checked  growth  or  decreased  vigor 
since  the  ‘‘summer  only”  treatment  made  the  best  average  total 


TABrE'  49.  Record  oe  Per  Cent  of  Growth  Pruned  off 


Row  2 

Row  3 

Row  4 

Row  5 

1 Tree 

i 

VARIETY 

1 No. 

WNCB 

W & S 

S 

WCB 

Growth  Pruned 

Growth  Pruned 

Growth 

Pruned 

Growth 

Pruned 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Inches 

; Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Elberta,  

1 

2774 

1468 

53 

3042 

2659 

87 

3077 

1046 

34 

2639 

1903 

72 

2 

3062 

1770 

58 

2205 

1816 

82 

3224 

1235 

38 

1470 

1272 

87 

3 

2222 

1240 

56 

3276 

1639 

50 

2472 

1639 

56 

4 

^39 

1665 

57 

Average, 

2925 

1634 

56 

2490 

1905 

77 

3192 

1307 

41 

2194 

1605 

73 

Stump,  

4 

3034 

2228 

73 

2991 

1236 

41 

1684 

1118 

60 

5 

21.30 

1227 

53 

2774 

1962 

71 

3302 

1559 

47 

2944 

2057 

70 

Average 

2130 

1227 

53 

2904 

2095 

72 

3147 

1398 

44 

2314 

1588 

69 

Carman,  . . . 

6 

1796 

857 

48 

2495 

1500 

60 

2027 

615 

30 

3594 

3001 

84 

7 

3013 

1170 

39 

1734 

1109 

64 

3005 

1067 

36 

3000 

1859 

62 

8 

2052 

1486 

72 

3051 

1884 

62 

2620 

1053 

40 

2248 

1564 

70 

Average, 

2287 

1171 

51 

2427 

1498 

62 

2551 

912 

36 

2947 

2141 

73 

All  Average, 

2538 

1378 

54 

2570 

1800 

70 

29:40 

1181 

40 

2506 

1802 

72 

twig  growth  of  all  the  treatments  and  also  the  greatest  average 
gain  in  trunk  circumference.  As  to  percentage  gain  in  twig 
growth  it  also  ranked  first  in  1913,  and  was  third  in  per  cent  gain 
in  trunk  circumference. 

These  results  are  presented  as  a preliminary  report.  No 
definite  conclusions  are  drawn  at  this  point  as  to  the  general 
effects  of  the  summer  pruning  of  peaches. 


TIME  REQUIRED  EOR  PRUNING  AT  VINEEAND 

In  an  economic  consideration  of  pruning,  the  time  element  is 
an  important  factor.  In  order  to  arrive  at  the  economic  value 


BuLIvETIN  326  69 

of  the  various  systems  of  pruning  practiced  in  this  experiment, 
the  actual  time  required  to  prune  the  trees  was  recorded. 

The  system  that  required  the  greatest  time  for  pruning  was  the 
“summer  and  winter”  treatment.  Trees  receiving  this  treatment 
were  given  one  pruning  in  June  and  another  during  the  dormant 
season.  The  average  time  in  minutes  and  seconds  required  to 
prune  each  tree  was  as  follows : 

During  the:  Season  of  1913-14,  New  Brunswick 


Row  6 

Row  7 ] 

Row  8 

Row  9 

All 

Rows 

w & S 

S 

WNCB 

WCB 

All  Treatments 

Gn  wth 

Pruned 

Growth 

Pruned  | 

1 

Growth 

Pruned 

Grow  th 

Pruned 

Growth 

Pruned 

Per 

Per  ! 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

Inches 

Inches 

Cent 

inches 

Inches 

Cent 

2513 

1070 

43 

2971 

907 

31 

4060 

2278 

56 

4274 

3564 

83 

3141 

2254 

72 

4107 

1426 

35 

4347 

2153 

50 

2539 

2207 

87 

2347 

1427 

61 

2886 

365 

13 

4425 

2831 

64 

2624 

2016 

77 

2667 

1584 

59 

3321 

'899 

27 

4277 

242i 

57 

3149 

2596 

83 

3027 

1744 

58 

4120 

2804 

68 

3248 

779 

24 

2632 

1143 

43 

2709 

1518 

56 

2710 

1598 

59 

3097 

681 

22 

2931 

2107 

72 

5020 

3637 

72 

3415 

2201 

64 

3173 

730 

23 

2782 

1625 

58 

3865 

2578 

67 

3022 

1710 

57 

3488 

2201 

63 

3717 

690 

18 

3854 

2468 

64 

2831 

1937 

68 

2407 

1445 

60 

2818 

487 

17 

3869 

2074 

54 

4312 

3485 

81 

2064 

1078 

52 

3506 

776 

22 

2648 

1703 

64 

2350 

1648 

70 

2653 

1575 

59 

3347 

651 

19 

3457 

2082 

60 

3164 

2357 

74 

2854 

1548 

64 

2849 

1735 

61 

3294 

764 

23 

3596 

2095 

58 

3332 

2502 

75 

2960 

1661 

66 

Summer  Winter  Total 


Stump,  2.45*  2.45  5.30 

Carman,  2.00  2.35  4.35 

Elberta,  2.10  3.15  5.25 


The  “summer  only”  treatment  required  the  next  greatest 
amount  of  time,  as  follows. 


Stump,  5.30 

Carman,  6.06 

Elberta,  3.30 


* The  decimal  point  marks  the  division  between  minutes  and  seconds. 


70 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


The  “winter  cut  back”  treatment  was  third  in  time  consumed, 
the  averages  being : 


Stump,  4.49 

Carman,  4.30 

Elberta,  3.15 


The  “winter  not  cut  back”  treatment  required  the  least  amount 
of  time,  averaging  per  tree  as  follows : 


Stump 3.23 

Carman,  2.15 

Elberta,  2.34 


The  greatest  amount  of  growth  was  removed  from  the  “winter 
cut  back”  treatment,  with  “winter  and  summer”  second,  “summer 
only”  fourth.  Thinning  in  summer  requires  more  time,  because 
of  the  interference  of  the  foliage. 

DORMANT  SEASON  PRUNING  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK,  EEBRUARY  AND 

MARCH,  1914 

Trees  receiving  the  “winter  and  not  cut  back,”  the  “winter 
cut  back,”  and  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatments  were  pruned 
during  Fel)ruary  and  A'larch,  1914,  as  outlined  on  page  6.  The 
pruning  record  for  each  tree  is  shown  in  table  49.  Here  is  given 
the  total  twig  growth  for  1913,  as  well  as  the  amount  of  growth 
pruned  off  (including  the  summer  pruning  in  the  case  of  plots  3, 
4,  6 and  7),  and  the  per  cent  of  total  growth  removed. 

The  average  amount  pruned  from  all  trees,  regardless  of 
variety  and  treatment,  is  56  per  cent.  The  average  total  growth 
removed  from  the  Elberta  trees  was  58  per  cent;  from  Stump 
trees  57  per  cent  and  from  the  Carman  trees  54  per  cent. 

Table  50  shows  the  per  cent  of  total  growth  removed  by  treat- 
ments. 

The  largest  average  proportion  removed,  regardless  of  variety, 
was  74  per  cent  in  the  case  of  the  “winter  cut  back”  treatment. 
This  treatment  shows  the  greatest  per  cent  removed  in  the  case 
of  Elberta  and  Carman,  with  79  and  74  per  cent,  respectively. 
Stump  had  67  per  cent  removed,  which  is  slightly  less  than  the 
per  cent  removed  in  the  “summer  and  winter”  treatment  for  this 
variety.  The  “summer  and  winter”  treatment  was  second  in 


Bulletin  326 


71 

percentage  removed,  an  average  of  65  per  cent  having  been 
pruned  off  all  varieties.  This  treatment  is  first  in  the  case  of 
Stump  with  68  per  cent  pruned  off,  but  it  is  second  with  both 
Elberta  (68  per  cent  pruned  off)  and  Carman  (60  per  cent 
pruned  off*).  The  ‘‘winter  not  cut  back”  treatment  was  third  in 
percentage  removed  and  this  percentage  is  very  close  to  the 
general  average  for  each  and  all  varieties.  The  “summer- 
pruned”  treatment  was  lowest  in  total  amount  removed  and  in 
percentage  removed.  Elberta  was  highest  for  the  treatment  with 
34  per  cent  pruned  off;  Stump  second,  with  33  per  cent,  and 
Carman  lowest  with  27  per  cent  pruned  off. 


Tabi^e  50 

Record  oe  Per  Cent  of  Growth  Removed  by  Treatment 

1913 


1 

VARIETY  1 

1 

WNCB 

WCB 

s&w 

1 

s 1 

i 

ALL 

1 

1 

1 Per  cent 

1 

1 Per  cent 

Per  cent 

1 

Per  cent 

Per  cent 

1 

Elberta,  1 

56  1 

1 

1 79 

68 

34 

58 

1 

stump,  1 

58  1 

1 

*67 

68 

33 

57 

Carman 

57 

1 74 

60 

27 

54 

All,  

57 

1 - 

65 

31 

1 

56 

By  referring  to  table  10  it  will  be  seen  that  the  summer  prun- 
ing on  Plots  3 and  6,  receiving  the  “summer  and  winter”  treat- 
ment, removed  between  one-third  and  one-half  the  total  amount 
pruned.  This  is  not  as  great  a reduction  in  winter  pruning  as 
was  found  at  Vineland. 

EFFECT  OF  SUMMER  PRUNING  DURING  I913  ON  TOTAL  GROWTH 
AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK 

The  “summer  only”  treatment  does  not  show  indications  of 
being  checked  by  the  practice  of  summer  pruning.  This  treat- 
ment was  second  in  total  average  of  twig  growth  and  in  average 
per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth.  It  was  fourth  in  per  cent  increase 
in  circumference. 


72 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


,a  QC  O rH  O r-l  OS  O CO  lO  O CO 
OOIINQIQ  lOCOCO  OSTfcOCO 
OCOiM(N(N  iHCOIM  rlCOrHOJ 


“rjonicoc  iH  iH  »H  CO  iH  05  , 
-gl-n'tOS  COLOt  --fOCI 


Oj  01  CO  CO  >H 
^ O CO  CO  tH 
O ^ CZ'  05  CO 
C CO  rH  iH  <N 


’f  O O 

05  LO  05  O) 

I-  IN  Tj<  tH 

1-1  CO  iH  N 


m 

& 

0 

0 

© 

m 

& 

0 

If  LO  IC 
CO  1-1 1- 
C 05  -f 


f-  CO  CO  05 


OJOTft-t-  CONGO  COCOOlO 

;0(NOC-O  OOS^f  (NNCON 

lyCOCDOSO  t- iH  Tf  C0  05  000 

fli-lT-ll— ll— ll— 11— I 1—1 


O5©C0Tf  iHCO©  t-OON 

t-  l.O  t-  CO  I-  10  O CO  10  CO 

iNNi-fN  NNN  CONNiN 


O 00  CO  00  00  ni  05  1 


> © (N  CO 
I 10  O iH 
1 If  00  •'f 


CO  00  CO 
(N  © Tf 
>0  CO  Tf 


80  00  © 
t-  © © 
© t-  KO  O 


00  CO  t-  © © N ( 

00  If  1-1  © © CO  < 

rf  N N N 1-1  N ( 


OI  IM  CO  iH  ( 
03  © CO  CO  1 
CJ  I-  N CO  C 


) N © 
) N N 


© 5 CO  © 
If  © t-  if 
© © N 00 


All  Average 1079  215  1294  896  251  1147  1654  182  1787  2275  188  2463 


BuL^IvETIN  326 


73 


AMOUNT  OF  TWIG  GROWTH  REMOVED  IN  CUTTING  BACK  AND 
THINNING  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK 

Table  51  shows  the  amount  of  twig  growth  removed  from  each 
tree  in  the  “winter  and  summer”  and  “winter  cut  back”  treat- 
ments, separated  into  thinnings  and  clippings. 

Table  52  summarizes  these  measurements.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  difference  in  the  amount  of  clipping  for  these  two  treat- 
ments is  considerable,  while  with  the  “winter  and  summer”  treat- 
ment an  average  of  19  per  cent  of  the  amount  pruned  in  winter 
is  clippings  while  the  “winter  cut  back”  treatment  gives  about 
7 per  cent. 

Table  52 

Summary  oe  Prunings  : Per  Cent  Thinned  and  Cut  Back 
New  Brunswick 


VARIETY 

Winter  and  Summer 

Winter  Cut  Back 

Total 

Thinned  | 

! Clipped 

1 

Total 

Thinned 

Clipped 

Elberta 

Stump,  

Carman,  

All 

Inches 
* 1242 
1447 
1047 
1220 

1 

Per 

Inches  cent 
1026  83 

1209  84 

802  76 

987  81 

1 _ 

Per 

Inches  cent 
216  17 

238  16 

236  24 

233  19 

Inches  | 
2053 
2080 
2228 
2125 

Per 

Inches  cent 
1905  93 

1919  92 

2055  92 

1965  93 

Per 

Inches  cent 
148  7 

161  8 

173  8 

160  7 

In  explanation  of  this,  attention  must  be  called  to  the  fact  that 
clipping  in  summer  tends  to  increase  the  number  of  shoots, 
which  would  necessitate  a greater  amount  of  clipping  at  the 
dormant  pruning,  since  an  effort  is  made  to  cut  back  every 
prominent  shoot.  Where  no  thinning  is  done  in  summer,  e.  g., 
in  the  “winter  cut  back”  treatment,  a considerable  amount  of 
thinning  is  necessary  in  the  winter  pruning,  which  reduces  the 
number  of  twigs  to  be  cut  back. 

SUMMARY  OE  THE  EFFECTS  OF  SUMMER  PRUNING  DURING  I913 
UPON  TOTAL  GROWTH  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK 

The  evidence  at  New  Brunswick  supports  that  gained  at  Vine- 
land  to  the  effect  that  summer  pruning  in  1913  did  not  check  the 
growth  of  the  trees.  The  “summer  only”  treatment  ranked 
second  in  average  twig  growth  and  second  in  per  cent  increase  in 
twig  growth.  Its  ranking  as  to  average  circumference  is  the 


74 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


same  as  in  1912  (fourth);  but  the  treatment  ranks ’second  in 
per  cent  increase  in  circumference.  This  statement  is  prelimi- 
nary. 


TIME  REQUIRED  EOR  PRUNING  AT  NEW  BRUNSWICK 


The  time  of  pruning  was  kept  at  New  Brunswick  as  well  as  at 
Vineland.  The  system  that  required  the  greatest  length  of  time 
was  the  “summer  and  winter’'  treatment.  Trees  receiving  this 
treatment  were  given  one  pruning  in  June  and  the  dormant 
season  pruning  in  the  late  winter.  The  average  time  required  to 
prune  each  tree  was  as  follows : 

Summer  Winter  Total 


Elberta,  i.i5*  440  5.10 

Stump,  1.53  3.57  5.50 

Carman,  i.o8  3.56  5.04 


On  the  average,  more  wood  was  pruned  in  the  “winter  cut 
back”  treatment,  but  the  time  required  was  somewhat  less,  as 
follows : 


Elberta, 

Stump, 

Carman, 


4-39 

5.08 

3-30 


The  “summer  only”  treatment  required  the  following  as  the 
average  pruning  time  per  tree,  where  two  prunings  were  made: 


Elberta,  2.45 

Stump,  4.00 

Carman,  ' 2.25 


Where  only  the  June  pruning  was  performed,  the  average  time 
was  as  follows : 


Elberta,  1.20 

vStump,  1.30 

Carman,  1.05 


The  “winter  not  cut  back”  treatment  required  the  shortest  time 
to  prune,  with  the  following  averages : 


Elberta,  2.45 

Stump,  2.46 

Carman,  2.24 


* The  decimal  point  marks  the  division  between  minutes  and  seconds. 


BullKTin  326 


75 


THE  APPEARANCE  OE  THE  TREES  AT  THE  CLOSE  OP  THE 
SEASON  OF  I913-I4 

Photographs  were  made  at  the  close  of  the  season  of  1913- 
14  of  the  same  trees  that  were  discussed  in  the  results  of  the 
season  of  1912-13  (page  21). 

Not  Pruned 

The  “not  pruned”  trees  (Stump,  Row  19,  Tree  2,  and  Carman, 
Row  20,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland)  are  shown  in  figures  2 and  4,  respec- 
tively. The  Stump  tree  (fig.  2)  has  spread  out  considerably  at 
the  base  and  there  is  a noticeable  thickening  of  the  top,  caused 
by  the  development  of  a large  number  of  small  twigs.  The  Car- 
man tree  (fig.  4)  has  also  spread  well  at  the  base,  and  the  top 
is  more  open.  These  two  trees  have  reached  about  the  same 
height,  but  the  spread  of  the  Carman  is  greater. 

Winter  Not  Cut  Back 

A Carman  tree.  Row  17,  Tree  2,  at  Vineland,  is  shown  before 
pruning  in  figure  7 and  after  pruning  in  figure  8.  This  tree  was 
pruned  rather  heavily  at  the  end  of  the  first  season,  a number  of 
comparatively  large  branches  being  removed  from  the  lower  part 
of  the  trunk.  This  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a number  of 
suckers  low  on  the  trunk.  These  were  pruned  off  and  the  other 
twigs  and  branches  thinned  out  so  that  the  tree  appears  to  be 
more  open. 

The  appearance  of  Elberta,  Row  18,  Tree  5,  at  Vineland,  before 
and  after  pruning,  is  shown  in  figures  ii  and  12.  This  tree  was 
not  very  heavily  pruned  at  the  close  of  the  first  season,  being 
compact  and  of  good  form.  The  character  of  the  pruning  at 
the  close  of  the  second  season  was  merely  to  thin  the  twigs  in  the 
center.  This  tree  has  a more  dwarfed,  compact  habit  than  any 
other  so  far  shown,  as  it  is  apparently  a foot  lower  than  the 
others. 

Stump,  Row  16,  Tree  3,  at  Vineland,  received  a heavy  pruning 
at  the  close  of  the  first  season,  so  that  before  it  was  pruned  in 
1 91 3-1 4 (fig.  15),  a number  of  suckers  had  formed  low  on  the 
trunk  and  on  the  scaffold  branches.  When  these  were  removed 


76  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

and  the  top  thinned  out,  the  tree  appeared  as  illustrated  in  figure 
i6. 

Winter  Cut  Back 

Although  Stump,  Row  25,  Tree  3,  at  Vineland,  had  a number 
of  large  twigs  removed  from  the  trunk,  it  did  not,  as  might  be 
expected,  produce  many  suckers  low  upon  the  trunk,  as  shown 
in  figure  19.  Figure  20  is  taken  from  a somewhat  different  posi- 
tion, but  it  shows  the  manner  in  which  the  tree  was  thinned  out 
and  cut  back.  Some  of  the  prominent  twigs  simply  had  the  tips 
removed,  but  the  leaders  were  cut  back  to  a side  twig. 

Carman,  Row  14,  Tree  5,  at  Vineland,  produced  a number  of 
suckers  on  the  scaffold  branches  during  the  second  summer,  as 
illustrated  in  figure  23.  This  tree  was  somewhat  more  dwarf 
than  either  the  Stump  or  the  Elberta  in  the  same  treatment,  and 
after  the  thinning  was  done,  the  tips  of  the  twigs  were  cut  back 
very  slightly,  as  illustrated  in  figure  24. 

Winter  and  Summer 

Stump,  Row  10,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland,  was  pruned  once  during 
the  summer.  Between  the  time  of  this  pruning  and  the  cessation 
of  growth,  the  top  was  made  very  dense  by  a number  of  fine 
twigs,  as  shown  in  figure  29.  These  were  thinned  out  consider- 
ably and  the  leading  twigs  cut  back,  when  the  tree  had  the  ap- 
pearance as  shown  in  figure  30.  This  tree  is  a fair  example  of 
a tree  pruned  to  the  vase  form. 

Elberta,  Row  12,  Tiee  4,  at  Vineland,  illustrates  again  the 
rather  compact  and  restricted  growth  of  this  variety  in  compari- 
son with  Carman  and  Stump.  In  height  this  tree  is  about  two 
feet  less  than  Stump  and  Carman  trees  in  the  same  treatment. 
It  did  not  make  so  many  twigs  in  the  top  as  the  preceding  tree,  as 
shown  in  figure  35.  After  the  tree  had  been  thinned,  only  a few 
of  the  leading  branches  were  cut  back  to  a side  twig,  most  of  the 
others  being  merely  clipped,  as  shown  in  figure  36. 

Another  Elberta  tree  of  this  treatment  (Row  24,  Tree  3,  at 
Vineland)  is  shown  before  and  after  the  winter  pruning  in  fig- 
ures 41  and  42.  This  is  a tree  that  was  allowed  to  fonu  its  head 
about  6 inches  from  the  ground.  It  grew  a little  more  vigorously 


BuIvLETin  326  77 

than  the  other  Elberta  tree  in  this  treatment,  but  like  that  tree 
had  comparatively  little  wood  removed  in  pruning. 

Sumnicr  Only 

The  winter  aspect  of  the  trees  in  the  “summer  only”  treatment 
is  shown  in  figure  49  for  Carman,  Row  8,  Tree  4,  at  Vineland, 
and  in  figure  56,  for  Elberta,  Row  4,  Tree  3,  at  New  Brunswick. 

Figure  49  shows  a tree  that  branches  close  to  the  ground.  The 
top  seems  to  be  a little  dense,  and  it  undoubtedly  has  a few  more 
twigs  than  would  have  been  allowed  to  remain  had  the  tree  been 
pruned  after  the  leaves  had  fallen. 

The  Elberta  tree  illustrated  in  figure  56  is  rather  more  dwarf 
than  any  hitherto  shown,  but  it  is  growing  under  different  soil 
and  climatic  conditions.  The  top  is  apparently  rather  thick,  due 
partly  to  the  fact  that  all  branches  and  twigs  seem  to  be  in  the 
same  plane,  a fault  not  easily  overcome  in  photographs. 

SUMMARY 

1 —  There  is  a great  lack  of  accurate,  scientific  data  on  the 
pruning  of  the  peach. 

2 —  The  objects  of  these  experiments  are  to  compare  the  effect 
of  pruning  (i)  of  different  types  upon  the  amount,  form,  and 
character  of  wood  growth;  (2)  during  the  growing  season  in 
comparison  with  pruning  done  during  the  dormant  season;  (3) 
upon  the  strength,  hardiness  and  length  of  life  of  the  tree;  (4) 
upon  the  position,  quantity,  size,  color,  quality,  and  time  of 
maturity  of  the  fruit;  (5)  upon  the  cost  of  spraying,  thinning, 
and  packing  of  fruit,  removal  of  borers,  and  other  details  of 
orchard  management. 

3 —  Types  of  pruning  studied  are  as  follows : 

Not  pruned. 

Winter-pruned,  but  not  cut  back, 

Winter-pruned  and  cut  back, 

Winter-  and  summer-pruned. 

Summer-pruned  only. 

The  following  varieties  are  used  in  the  experiments : 

Stump,  Carman,  Elberta. 


78 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


4 —  The  location  of  the  experiments  and  the  number  of  plots 
and  trees  are  as  follows : 

Vineland  : 2 plots  to  each  treatment,  10  in  all;  15  trees  to  each 
plot,  5 of  each  of  the  3 varieties. 

New  Brunswick:  7 plots,  i not  pruned  and  2 of  each  of  the 
other  treatments;  8 trees  to  each  plot,  3 each  of  Elberta  and 
Carman  and  2 of  Stump. 

5 —  The  soils  are  as  follows  : 

At  Vineland — sandy  loam. 

At  New  Brunswick — gravelly  Penn  (red  shale)  loam. 

6 —  The  period  studied  in  this  bulletin  covers  the  first  two 
seasons  after  the  planting. 

7 —  Measurements  of  Total  Linear  Twig  Growth  During  the 


First  Season.  The  general 

averages  of  the 

total  linear  twig 

growth  during  the  first  season  follow : 

Vineland 

New  Brunswick 

Inches 

Inches 

All  varieties,  

746 

436 

Stump,  

800 

609 

Carman,  

750 

400 

Elberta,  

677 

436 

During  the  first  season,  the  trees  at  Vineland  averaged  from 
about  200  to  350  inches  more  growth  according  to  the  variety 
than  at  New  Brunswick.  Stump  made  the  best  average  total 
growth  at  both  places.  There  was  not  much  difference  between 
Carman  and  Elberta.  It  is  only  fair  to  state  that  the  Carman 
trees  were  somewhat  the  poorest  at  the  time  of  planting. 

After  the  growth  measurements  were  computed  at  the  close 
of  the  first  season’s  growth,  the  various  pruning  treatments  were 
assigned  to  certain  plots.  Table  53  shows  the  average  size  of  the 
trees  in  these  plots  ’at  the  actual  beginning  of  the  pruning  studies. 

The  following  growth  was  made  by  the  largest  and  the  smallest 


trees : 

f S tump N 

f C arman \ 

f Elberta > 

Largest 

Smallest 

Largest 

Smallest 

Largest  Smallest 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Vineland,  

■ • 1392 

273 

1177 

270 

1509 

321 

New  Brunswick,  , 

• • 1239 

314 

998 

108 

797 

108 

Table  53-  Average  Growth  oe  Trees  Grouped  According  to  Future  Treatments,  1912 


Bulletin  326  79 


2^ 

B 

P 

rH  IN  3^  CCIO 

0 

3 

CO  ' 

rH  IC  «T 

Es 

CA 

Pi 

£ 

§ 

B 

3 

3 

M 

tf) 

Pi 

a 0 

in 

Js 

2 & 

2J  0 <N  CO  CO 

is 

0 £ 

■ 

X CO  IN 

LO  C IN  C 

« 

n 

u)a 

Si  kO  TJH  CO  CO  <N 
p 

H 

Pi 

B 

Pi 

0 <2 

a| 

P CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

93 

t-3 

2| 

iche 

653 

562 

660 

806 

712 

On 

B 

0 p 

T)1  1-  t-  C5 

00  CD  CD  CD 

'3 

.3  0 

c CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

a 

-tjO 

3 

0<|-| 

0) 

to 

0; 

a 

3 

> 

> 

B 

31  kO  CO  IH  N 

S 

3 

Pi 

LO 

r^  CO  CO  D1 

.M 

< 

B 

V 

3 

3 N CO  lO  tH 

■w 

CEh 

0 

3 

rH  IN  CO  kfO  Tfl 

& 

Pi 

w 

B 

3 

P 

w 

p 

M 

OJ  rl 

bcS 

Xfl 

B 

D 

M 

a g 

in 

& 

0) 

2 ^ 

4,  0 

^0 

Inche 

322 

452 

391 

306 

552 

H 

D 

;2; 

•< 

;2; 

3 3 

W 4) 

Inche 

4.14 

3.29 

3.24 

2.78 

3.04 

< 

s 

0 

H 

Pi 

Si5 

m 

0 

as 

in 

0 

2 ^ 

2i  ^ c ^ CO 

0 

3 3 

0 p 

4^  CO  kc  00  a 

B CO  CD  05  l»  CO 

3 CO  t-  l>  t- 

Q 

.3  £ 

a CO  CO  CO  CO 

M 

<!0 

HH 

B 

p 

O'*-! 

l-H 

0 

•2 

0 

> 

tS 

U 

< 

p 

> 

B 

3 

P 

CO  kO  N 31  iH 

3 

rH 

kC  IN  CO  Tjl 

Pi 

Q 

B 

W 

,±4 

.M 

Pl< 

B 

0 

3 

CO  rH  (N  lO 

p 

0 

3 

p 

p 

1-1  CO  iN  no 

B 

Ci3 

p 

0 

3 

p 

3 

^ ja 
Mt: 

CO 

w 

m 

a g 

in 

0 

;z; 

2 ^ 

£ 0 

> rh 

2 00  »-f  Oi  »-l 
fikOTt^ciot- 
g IP  kP  t- 

w 

B 

a> 

;2: 

p p 

O) 

;p  a* 

nche 

3.93 

3.691 

3.80 

3.09 

3.36 

<jO 

B 

B 

H 

gi5 

0 

Xfi 

B 

H 

m 

a s 

in 

02 

2 1 

Jj  0 0 kP  CO 

'SLPCSCO'^JHb- 

W 

0 

3 3 

0 3 

0^  b.  t-  B CO  00 
B rH  N tH  CO  05 

'd 

^ "s 

g CO  I-*  GO  GO  00 

Iz; 

•3 

U t-t 
•fh  0 

a Tj?  •<j5  r}5  3?  CO 

p 

w 

3 

0 «W 

B 

>2 

0^ 

W 

3 

p 

> 

B 

§ 

.5 

’;> 

P 

3 

kP  C<|  CO  r-l 

D 

P 

CO  (0^  tH  k/n 

Pi 

0 

B 

M 

iA 

0 

B 

0 

3 

3 

r3  N CO  kO  31 

U 

P 

P 

N CO  klO  Tji 

xn 

Pi 

W 

m 

Pi 

3 

0 

3 

3 

< 

3 

(S 

m 

B 

W 

M 

a g 

m 

pj 

2 fe 

S CD  0 31  GO  31 

< 

p p 

Tji  (N  CO  r-l 

0) 

*-1  £ 

0;  p 

•P,  Oi  00  LO  --1  (N 

Jli  3^  ^ -HJH 

4; 

:z; 

0 0; 

J-* 

Jp  'I' 

■So? 

3 CO 

3;  CO  © T-; 
CO  CO  CO  CO 

^0 

•— » 

0 

1— I 

i 

B 

-1 

S)S 

93 

1 ^ 

1 H 

<! 

A 0 

p 0 

1 c® 

2 ^ 

J;  t-  CO  31  0 N 
■3  ® CO  CO  0 t- 

m 

p p 

0 ^ 

a 

B N ’ll  kO 

05  ro  0 00 

■3 

" CO  CD  t-  t-  t- 

-3 

1 3 

CO  CO  3^  CO 

1 

^0 

1 H 

3 

3 

0 'M 

1 

0/ 

1 

3 

> 

iA 

> 

5 

1 31  k-O  N t3  CO 

1 3<  CO  iN  kO 

HH 

1 

i 

H 

H 

Z 

B 

B 

s 

g 

H 

i 

<3 

<< 

B 

•P5  .02 

] 

B 

« .m  ■ 

Pi 

H 

'2;  0^ 

H 

d 

^ B .0  ; 

is  M 

1 

5?  pi  pi  tS  M 

8o 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


8 — Measurement  of  Circumference,  First  Season.  The  cir- 
cumferences of  the  trunks  of  the  trees  about  six  inches  above  the 
ground  also  were  determined  at  the  close  of  the  first  season,  and 
the  general  averages  follow : 

Vineland  New  Brunswick 


Inches 

Inches 

All  varieties,  

3-95 

3.22 

Stump,  

4-17 

3.54 

Carman,  

3-92 

3-19 

Elberta,  

369 

310 

Only  the  Stump  trees  at  Vineland  averaged  in  excess  of  4 
inches  in  circumferences  at  the  close  of  1912. 

The  average  circumferences  of  the  trees  as  selected  for  the 
pruning  treatments  are  given  in  table  54. 


The  range  in  circumference  is  given  below : 

! Stump ^ ( Carman s ^ Elberta- 


Largest 

Smallest 

Largest 

Smallest 

Largest 

Smallest 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Vineland,  

..  5-12 

3.12 

5-25 

2.12 

5-12 

2.50 

New  Brunswick, 

4.00 

2.93 

4.68 

2.00 

4-31 

2.00 

9 — Summer  Pruning,  ip/j.  The  summer-pruning  treatments 
began  during  1913  and  the  average  amount  of  growth  pruned 
off  is  recorded.  In  general  about  twice  as  much  twig  growth 
was  removed  at  Vineland  as  at  New  Brunswick. 


r Summer n ^ Winter  and  Summer > 

Vineland  New  Brunswick  Vineland  New  Brunswick 


Inches 


Stump,  2092 

Carman,  2067 

Elberta,  i74i 

All  varieties,  1961 


Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1064 

1184 

702 

781 

1126 

506 

1103 

1158 

500 

973 

1156 

552 

Trees  receiving  the  ‘‘summer  only”  treatment  were  pruned 
about  the  middle  of  June  and  in  the  early  part  of  October.  Those 
receiving  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatment  were  pruned  only 
once  during  the  summer,  about  the  middle  of  June. 


Table  55-  Average  Growth  According  to  Treatments,  1913 


81 


Bulletin  326 


.ill 

Pd 

rH  IP  <N  W 

cd 

IP  1-1  eo  ■H' 

s 

Pi 

in 

a 

2 

2 

n 

93 

pq 

A oj 

Q O 

m 

0^ 

01 

Z 

& 

o 

p 

O 

Inche 

4151 

2564 

3089 

3160 

3160 

& 

<3; 

12; 

C3 

2 2 

6 <2 

Inche 

6.00 

7.89 

7.17 

7.08 

7.20 

S 

pa 

o 

w 

H 

02 

93 

pq 

as 

w 

0/  o C5  CO  CO  IP 

pa  00  IP  CO  --H  00 

O 05  <N  Tt<  CO  (N 

C CO  -HI  Tfi  T}( 

H 

a Ip  fr  CO  O GO 

TS 

0 

2 

o 

C 

o a> 

PP  t- O CO  IP 
c b-  t-  00 

cd 

c3 

0; 

a 

C 

> 

.M 

c 

c 

IP  Tt<  ,-1  oa  CO 

cd 

« 

(M  CO  r-i  IP  -H 

.M 

pa 

pa 

rH 

CO  -HI  IP  oa 

.rt 

a 

tH  JOIN  IP 

« 

& 

pq 

s 

CO 

s 

p 

P 

M 

pa 

0\ 

M 

a s 

CO 

& 

0) 

1 

OJTjlrHOaOl- 
pa  CO  CO  r-l  O iH 

t/T 

OJ 

p a 

O 0) 

a IP  IfO  Tfi  CO  C5 
’gt-C0IP«Ob- 

iz; 

O 

p CO  CO  ca  M CO 

:zi 

iz; 

Iz; 

o <2 

a t-:  tq  CO  CO 

ALL 

p: 

<j^ 

P5 

<J 

a ^ 
a o 

Ui 

'U) 

c 

p 

6 

Inche 

3892 

3522 

4168 

4047 

4263 

1 

O 

ra 

0 

a a 

o <U 

tH  ^ 
6<2 

Inche 

8.13 

7.97 

9.00 

7.78 

8.21 

o 

Oi 

a 

fl 

o 

> 

cd 

IP  oa  CO  th 

CO  Tjl  rH  IP  N 

o 

pa 

0 

pa 

pa 

CO 

i=l 

a 

eS 

CO  th  Tt<  IP  ca 

u 

u 

< 

CJ 

& 

CO 

a 

a 

a 

pq 

i-H  CO  N IP 

p 

w 

2 

M 

& 

Oi 

12: 

Growth 

Inches 

2811 

3510 

2670 

2578 

3257 

u 

w 

pa 

w 

PL< 

pq 

& 

<D 

;z: 

Circum- 

ference 

Inches 

8.50 

7.25 

7.38 

7.42 

7.00 

S 

H 

n 

pa 

Ifl 

f=H 

P 

o 

P 

Eh 

m 

a ^ 
y o 

CO 

% 

O-CO-^COTHt- 
rC  1-1  CO  CO  l>  O 

pa 

fl 
a u 

a 05  05  t-H  CO  IN 

pp  oj  ^ CO  o 00 

-o 

a 

2 

O 

o 05 
C CO 

O 05  00 
CO  CO  cc  CO 

6 

'O 

a 

Eh 

•5<2 

c o6  00  00  00  (> 

w 

a 

<v 

o 

a! 

c 

< 

a 

> 

pa 

w 

> 

pa 

a 

3 

ca  IP  th  CO 

> 

< 

a 

pq 

IN  (M  tH  ai  IP 

pa 

1 

.'H 

C 

a 

th  TfH  ca  IP  CO 

vd 

Cd 

rH  (N  CO  IP  T)1 

& 

m 

& 

s 

w 

a 

p 

S-i 

n 

2872 

3056 

2540 

2949 

p1 

PQ 

< 

a 

M 

a s 

a 

;z; 

0) 

& 

o 

p 

O 

Inche 

4375 

J 

& 

a 

iz; 

D fl 
c.)  a» 

Eh  U 

Joqococooo 

ig  IP  CO  CO  05  05 

a iq  CO  CD 

P 

pa 

Xfl 

<1 

H o 

a 

O 

lO  LO  LO  O 

D ci 

0-  t-  00  N CO  05 

^ 05  CD  05  CO  tH 

•y  0^ 

P3  rH  05  rf  t-  GO 

-a 

a 

2 

o 

CJb-(MliOGOt- 
C CO  CO  Tji  CO 

-a 

1 

Eh  Eh 
.pH  O 

o 'W 

c 00  t-P  00  bP 

o 

a 

c 

a 

> 

1 

> 

C 

a 

1 

' EO  OJ  CO  tH 

cd 

IN  CO  tH  IP  Tfl 

H 

iz; 

S'; 

H 

' • • • 

pq 

S 

* « • • 

§ 

Eh 

H 

H 

M .m  • 

c 

Cl3 

• pq'  .m  • 

Cd 

H 

a 

O p3  ^ . 

pq 

H 

• 

1 

;?  ts  ^ 02 

S qp  ^ ^ 02 

7.89  6.98  4 I 5 7.82  7.00  5 i 2 8.21  6.79  4 1 4 7.58  7.20 


82  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

10 — Measurement  of  Twig  Growth  of  Second  Season,  The 
amount  of  twig  growth  made  during  the  second  season  also  was 
recorded  and  the  general  averages  follow  : 


Vineland 

New  Brunswick 

Inches 

Inches 

All  varieties,  

3981 

3035 

Stump,  

4258 

3155 

Carman,  

4026 

3023 

Elberta,  

3608 

2971 

Stump  again  made  the  largest  average  total  growth  of  the 
three  varieties  under  test.  The  trees  at  Vineland  also  made  an 
average  of  from  637  to  1103  inches  more  growth  according  to 
variety  than  those  at  New  Brunswick.  The  average  growth  and 
rank  by  treatments  follows  in  table  55. 


The  range  in  circumference  at  end  of  second  season  is  shown 
below. 

( Stump \ ^ Carman \ r Elherta ^ 


Largest 

Smallest 

Largest 

Smallest 

Largest 

Smallest 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Vineland,  

• • 9-75 

7.00 

10.25 

5-50 

9-25 

6.50 

New  Brunswick,  , 

. . 8.50 

6.25 

8.75 

5-75 

9-25 

6.00 

II — Per  cent  Gain  in  Tzvig  Grozvth  in  1913  Over  Thai  Made 
in  1912.  The  per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth  in  1913  over  that 
made  in  1912  is  given  below : 

Vineland  New  Brunswick 

All  varieties,  433  594 


Stump,  432  417 

Carman,  437  634 

Elberta 428  739 


12 — A Comparison  of  Twig  Growth  Made  by  Trees  of  Vary- 
ing Vigor.  The  trees  at  Vineland  made  a larger  average  total 
growth,  while  those  at  New  Brunswick  made  a higher  average 
per  cent  gain  over  the  growth  made  in  1912. 

At  Vineland,  the  trees  that  were  below  the  average  in  1912 
made  a greater  per  cent  increase  in  1913,  but  the  actual  average 
increase  does  not  approach  that  made  by  the  trees  that  were  about 
the.  average  in  1912. 

At  New  Brunswick,  a greater  per  cent  increase  in  growth  was 
recorded  in  favor  of  the  trees  that  were  below  the  average  in 


1912. 


Bulletin  326 


83 


A comparison  between  trees  on  a basis  of  total  growth  indi- 
cates the  size  of  the  tree,  but  may  not  correctly  indicate  the  rate 
of  growth  made  by  these  trees  in  proportion  to  their  vigor  at  the 
beginning. 

Small  trees  at  the  end  of  the  first  season  may  not  make  as 
great  a total  twig  growth  as  trees  that  were  large,  but,  other 
things  being  equal,  the  per  cent  increase  in  growth  will  be  greater 
for  the  small  trees  than  for  the  large  tree. 

13 —  Groups  of  Trees  of  Varying  Vigor  at  End  of  First  Season. 
Considerable  variation  in  total  twig  growth  was  found  to  occur 
between  individual  trees  at  the  close  of  the  first  season.  An  at- 
tempt was  made  to  determine  how  great  a difference  in  linear 
twig  growth  had  an  influence  upon  the  growth  of  the  trees  in  the 
second  season.  Between  some  groups  an  average  difference  of 
50  inches  the  first  season  was  appreciable  in  the  second  season, 
while  between  others  an  average  difference  of  100  inches  ap- 
parently had  little  or  no  influence. 

The  per  cent  gain  in  twig  growth  in  1913  is  in  inverse  ratio  to 
the  amount  of  growth  made  in  1912. 

14 —  Measurement  of  Circumference  at  End  of  Second  Season. 
The  general  averages  of  the  circumferences  at  the  end  of  the 
second  season  follow: 


Vineland 

New  Brunswick 

Inches 

Inches 

All  varieties,  

8.04 

7.24 

Stump,  

7-33 

Carman,  

8.20 

7.12 

Elberta,  

7.69 

7-31 

At  the  close  of  the  second  season  none  of  the  varieties  at  New 
Brunswick  had  attained  an  average  trunk  circumference  of  7.50 
inches,  while  at  Vineland  both  Carman  and  Stump  exceeded  an 
average  of  8 inches.  The  averages  according  to  treatments  are 
given  in  table  56. 

15 — Per  Cent  Increase  in  Circumference  Over  IQ12.  The 
general  averages  of  the  per  cent  increase  in  circumference  over 
1912  are  given  in  the  following : 


84 


Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 


Vineland  New  Brunswick 


Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

All  varieties,  

124 

Stump,  

96 

104 

Carman,  

109 

126 

Elberta,  

133 

With  one  exception,  all  varieties  made  more  than  loo  per  cent 
increase  in  trunk  circumference  in  1913  in  comparison  with  that 
made  in  1912. 

The  range  in  growth  made  by  individual  trees  follows : 

( Stump N r Carman r Elberta ^ 


Greatest 

Least 

Greatest 

Least 

Greatest 

Least 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Vineland,  

. . 7108 

2110 

6883 

1045 

6746 

1466 

New  Brunswick, 

. . 5020 

1684 

5355 

1734 

4425 

1470 

16 —  Increase  in  Circumference  of  Trees  of  Varying  Vigor. 
In  both  the  Vineland  and  the  New  Brunswick  experiments,  all 
the  trees  that  were  below  the  average  in  1912  made  a greater 
per  cent  increase  in  circumference  than  those  that  were  above  the 
average. 

The  smaller  the  circumference  in  1912  the  greater  was  the 
per  cent  increase  in  circumference  in  1913. 

17 —  Total  Inches  of  Twig  Growth  for  Each  One  Inch  Increase 
in  Trunk  Circumference.  It  was  also'  of  interest  to  know  the 
number  of  inches  of  twig  growth  made  for  each  inch  increase  in 
trunk  circumference  in  1913.  The  average  was  960  inches  at 
Vineland  and  738  inches  at  New  Brunswick.  The  amount  varied 
with  the  variety,  as  shown  below : 

Vineland  New  Brunswick 


Inches 

Inches 

All  varieties,  

960 

738 

Stump,  

1069 

822 

Carman,  

931 

744 

Elberta,  

853 

699 

The  ratios  upon  the  basis  of  the  various  pruning  treatments  is 
given  in  table  57. 


Table  57-  Growth  Ratios  According  to  Treatments 


BuLIvETIN  326 


85 


1 CO  10  IN 


00  CO  CO  Tt<  CO 
N 0>  no  t-  t- 
00  CO  CD  CD  t- 


■0^05N 

• rH  05  t-  no 

• t-  t-  O 00 


2 ooqooQco 


CO  CO  CD  00 
> no  rH  00  no 

I 05  05  O 


^8! 

05  0 < 


no  CO  iN 


<H  (N  00  CD 
N IN  00  rH 
05  00  05  qO 


M .m 

► S W og 


05  ® CD  05  00 

Oi  no  t-  CD  CO 


115  N T}1  1— I 

.0  00  00  00 

c^^co-^t- 

O rH  N N r-< 


b‘  a 05  o>  CO  < 
^ oJ  CD  CD  ' 
ly 


jh-.-lCD 

I 0 >-1  o 

( CO  IN  N 


5-  q Tt<  CD  no 
^ <y  Tti  CD  no  Tfi 


J IN  C0( 

.sa  05  00  ■ 

C tH  N ( 


cu  C ^ KO  tH 
fU  no  ^ CD  CO 


2 O M t-  M 
^CDiftCDt- 
V t-  In  b-  05 
C rH  (j|rH 


2N  ^(N  CO 
^ CD  05  no  no 
'j  CD  00  ^ 05 

a rH  MlN  1H 


w .oT 

S ® 


86 


Pruning  Expkrime^nts  With  Peacheys 

The  range  in  ratios  in  the  various  varieties  at  Vineland  follow : 

Stump,  528  to  1527 

Carman,  484  to  1861 

Elberta,  397  to  1750 

The  trees  that  made  the  largest  growth  generally  showed  the 
widest  ratio.  A few  trees  made  a large  growth  and  a relatively 
small  ratio;  and  a few  others  had  a relatively  small  growth  and  a 
relatively  large  ratio  of  increase. 

The  evidence  here  shown  points  to  the  probability  that  branches 
low  down  on  the  trunk  and  permitting  shoots  or  suckers  to 
develop  and  remain  on  the  lower  part  of  the  trunk  during  the 
growing  season,  tend  to  increase  the  girth  of  the  trunk  more 
rapidly  than  where  such  shoots  are  removed  and  where  the  trunk 
is  longer  and  the  branches  higher  above  the  ground. 

In  the  summer-pruned  treatments  the  shoots  are  removed  from 
the  trunk,  giving  in  almost  every  case  a greater  twig  growth  to 
each  inch  increase  in  trunk  circumference,  while  on  the  other 
hand,  in  the  “not  pruned”  and  “winter-pruned”  treatments,  the 
twigs  were  allowed  tO'  remain  on  the  trunks,  resulting  in  a 
narrower  ratio  of  increase  in  trunk  circumference  to  increase  in 
twig  growth. 

It  is  also  apparent  in  these  experiments  that  if  most  of  the 
growth  is  made  at  the  very  top  of  the  tree,  it  will  have  less  pro- 
portionate influence  upon  the  circumference  of  the  trunk  near  the 
ground.  In  other  words,  the  increase  in  trunk  circumference  is 
determined  not  only  by  the  total  amount  of  growth,  but  by  the 
location  of  that  growth  with  respect  to  the  trunk. 

18 — Dormant  Season  Pruning  at  Close  of  Second  Season. 
The  amount  of  twig  growth  removed  in  the  dormant  season 
pruning  at  the  close  of  the  second  season’s  growth  was  measured, 
and  the  general  averages  follow  : 

Vineland  New  Brunswick 

Inches  Per  Cent  Inches  Per  Cent 


All  varieties,  2245  5b  1661  56 

Stump,  2576  59  1710  57  ^ 

Carman,  2146  53  1548  54 

Elberta,  2009  56  1744  58 


Table  58  shows  the  amounts  removed  according  to  treatments. 

The  average  amount  of  wood  growth  pruned  off  at  Vineland 
varied  from  1662  inches,  or  47  per  cent,  in  the  “winter  not  cut 
back”  treatment  to  2891  inches,  or  69  per  cent,  in  the  “winter  cut 
back”  treatment.  The  amount  pruned  off  at  New  Brunswick 


BuLIvETIN  326  87 

varied  from  973  inches,  or  31  per  cent,  in  the  '‘summer  only” 
treatment  to  2152  inches,  or  74  per  cent,  in  the  "winter  cut  back” 
treatment.  The  amounts  pruned  off  also  vary  according  to  the 
variety. 

The  amounts  pruned  off  in  the  "winter  cut  back”  treatment 
are  between  two-thirds  and  three-fourths  of  the  total  twig 
growth. 

19 —  Effect  of  Summer  Pruning  on  Amount  of  Winter  Prim- 
ing Necessitated.  The  amount  of  twig  growth  pruned  off  was 
separated  into  the  amount  removed  in  thinning  out  twigs  and  the 
amount  removed  in  clipping  back  the  tips  of  twigs.  The  per- 
centages of  each  follow  based  on  the  total  removed. 

Vineland  New  Brunswick 

Per  Cent  Per  Cent  Per  Cent  Per  Cent 
Thinned  Clipped  Thinned  Clipped 

Winter  Cut  Back, 92  8 93  7 

Winter  and  Summer,  85  15  81  19 

From  the  above  it  will  be  noted  that  summer  pruning  reduced 
the  amount  of  the  necessary  thinning  of  twig  growth  in  winter, 
but  increased  the  amount  of  clipping*  back  due  to  the  increase  in 
the  vigor  of  the  secondary  twigs  on  the  leaders. 

The  summer  pruning  of  the  "winter  and  summer”  treatment 
reduced  the  pruning  required  in  winter  by  about  one-half  at 
Vineland,  and  by  one-third  to  one-half  at  New  Brunswick,  as 
compared  with  the  "winter  cut  back”  treatment. 

Pinching  back  the  main  twigs  increased  the  number  of  vigorous 
secondary  or  side  twigs. 

20 —  Time  Required  to  Prune.  A record  was  kept  of  the  time 
required  to  prune  each  tree.  It  is  probably  somewhat  greater 
than  would  be  the  case  under  commercial  conditions,  since  care 
was  taken  to  collect  the  twigs  pruned  off  and  to  follow  the  prun- 
ing treatments  in  a detailed  manner.  More  time  was  required 
also  in  pruning  the  trees  that  were  photographed  than  was  the 
case  with  the  other  individuals. 

The  average  time  required  to  prune  the  trees  in  terms  of 
minutes  and  seconds  follows  : 


■Stump  \ 

( C arman \ 

-Elherta \ 

Vine- 

New 

Vine-  Nczv 

Vine- 

New 

land 

Brunswick 

land  Brunswick 

land 

Brunswick 

WNCB,  3.23  2.46  2.15  2.24  2.34  2.45 

WCB,  4.49  S.08  4.30  3.30  3.15  4-39 

W & S,  5.30  5.50  4.35  5.04  5.2s  5.10 

S,  530  4-00  6.06  2.25  3.30  2.45 


88  Pruning  Experiments  With  Peaches 

The  “winter  cut  back”  treatment  required  an  average  of  from 
one  to  two  minutes  more  per  tree  than  the  “winter  not  cut  back.” 
The  pruning  in  summer  is  made  difficult  by  the  presence  of  the 
foliage  and  fruit.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  time  required  for 
the  “summer  only”  treatment  was  less  in  some  cases  than  the 
“winter  and  summer.”  This  is  probably  because  the  late  summer 
pruning  in  September  was  not  quite  as  severe  and  thorough  as 
the  winter  pruning  on  the  “winter  and  summer”  treatment. 

The  average  cost  of  the  pruning  of  the  various  treatments  in 
1913  figured  on  the  basis  of  100  trees,  and  labor  at  20  cents  per 
ho  ur,  is  given  in  table  60. 


Table;  60 

Average  Cost  of  Pruning  ioo  Trees  at  20  Cents  Per  Hour. 


treatment 

STUMP 

CARMAN  1 

1 

ELBERTA 

I 

Vineland 

New 

Brunswick 

Vineland 

New 

Brunswick 

Vineland 

New 

Brunswick 

Aver- 

age 

WNCB 

$1.13 

$0.92 

$0.75 

$0.80 

$0.86 

$0.92 

$0.90 

WCB,  

1.61 

1.71 

1.50 

1.17 

1.08 

1.55 

1.44 

W & S 

1.83 

1.94 

1.54 

1.89 

1.81 

1.72 

1.79 

S,  

1.83 

1.33 

2.03 

0.81 

1.17 

0.92 

1 

1.35 

Stump  was  the  most  expensive  variety  of  the  three  to  prune 
both  at  Vineland  and  New  Brunswick,  and  Elberta  was  more 
expensive  to  prune  at  New  Brunswick  than  Carman. 

Of  the  various  treatments  the  “winter  not  cut  back”  was  the 
cheapest  to  prune  and  the  “winter  and  summer”  the  most  ex- 
pensive. 

Summer  pruning  apparently  did  not  check  or  reduce  the 
amount  of  twig  growth  made  by  the  trees  during  the  second 
season. 

The  “summer  only”  treatment  at  Vineland  made  the  greatest 
average  total  growth  and  the  “winter  cut  back”  treatment  was 
second. 

At  New  Brunswick  the  “not  pruned”  treatment  made  the  best 
total  growth  and  the  “summer  only”  was  second. 

It  is  too  early  in  these  experiments  to  draw  any  definite  con- 
clusions as  to  the  actual  effect  of  the  various  pruning  treatments, 
but  these  data  are  submitted  to  furnish  the  details  of  the  study, 
and  to  show  the  actual  behavior  of  the  trees. 


L FEEDING  STUFFS  AND 'REGISTRATIONS 
FOR  1918 


NEW  JERSEY 
AGRICULTURAL 


tmtitmi 


BULLETIN  327 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  ftGRIGULTURftL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS’ 


NEW  BRUNSWICK.  N.  J. 


STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 

BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 

His  Excellency  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County 
Atlantic 
Bergen 
Burlington 
Camden 
Cape  May 


Name  Address 

William  A.  Blair  Elwood 

Arthur  Lozier  Ridgewood 

R.  R.  Lippincott  Vincentown 

Ephraim  T.  Gill  Haddonfield 

Charles  Vanaman  Dias  Creek 

Cumberland  Charles  F.  Seabrook  Bridgeton 

Essex  Zenos  G.  Crane  Caldwell 

Gloucester  Wilbur  Beckett  Swedesboro 

Hudson  Diedrich  Bahrenburg  Union  liill 

ITunterdon  Egbert  T.  Bush  Stockton 

Mercer  Josiah  T.  Allinson  Yardville 


County 

Name 

Address 

Middlesex 

James  Neilson 

New  Bruns’k 

Monmouth 

William  H.  Reid 

Tennent 

Morris 

John  C.  Welsh 

Ger’n  Valley 

Ocean 

Joseph  Sapp 

Tuckerton 

Passaic 

Isaac  A.  Serven 

Clifton 

Salem 

Charles  R.  Hires 

Salem 

Somerset 

Joseph  Larocque 

Bernardsville 

Sussex 

Robert  V.  Armstrong 

Augusta 

Union 

John  Z.  Hatfield 

Scotch  Plains 

Warren 

James  I.  Cooke 

Delaware 

STAFF. 

Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D Director. 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc Editor. 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian. 


Frank  App,  B.Sc Agronomist. 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.Sc  ...  Associate  Agronomist. 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray .Sampler  and  Assistant. 

Henry  C.  McLean,  Ph.D.  . Chemist  Soil  Res’h. 
William  M.  Regan,  A.M..  Dairy  Husbandman. 
WiLLES  B.  Combs,  A.M., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc. ..Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc... Asst.  Entomologist. 
Maurice  A.  Blake,  B.Sc Horticulturist. 


X’lNCENT  J.  BrEAZEALE, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing. 
Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Fruit  Studies. 
William  Schieferstein,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetabble  Studies. 

H.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.Agr.  . Poultry  Husbandman. 
l^ALSTON  R.  Hannas,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

Elmer  H.  Wene Poultry  Foreman. 

John  P.  Helyar,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jesse  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON , New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. 

J.  AMORY  HASKELL Red  Bank. 

STAFF. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Director. 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B Chief  Clerk. 


Byron  D.  Halsted,  Sc.D Botanist. 

John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.Sc Assistant  in  Botany. 

Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding.' 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.D Asst.  Entomologist. 


Augusta  E.  Meske.  . . .Stenographer  and  Clerk. 
Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D.  ..  .Plant  Pathologist. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 
Cyrus  Witmer,  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


Staff  list  revised  to  August  15,  1918. 


(2) 


NEW  JERSEY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 
AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Alva  Agee Director. 

Frank  App,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Leader  of 
Farm  Demonstration. 

Victor  G.  Aubry,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  W.  Bartlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Superintend- 
ent of  Farm  Demonstration. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fertility 
and  Agronomy. 

Marjory  Eells,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

Edna  G click.  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 

William  H.  Hamilton,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  State 
Leader  of  I'arm  Demonstration. 


M.  Anna  Hauser,  B.Sc.,^  Home  Demonstration 
Leader. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

Van  E.  Leavitt,  Specialst,  Fruit  Growing. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Helen  E.  Minch,  Specialist,  Home  Economics. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Ethel  H.  Gsmond,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc.,  Editor. 


Frank  A,  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County. 

Bertha  Cold,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Jersey  City. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Elwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Monmouth  County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  for 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  EIartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  A.  Hoffman,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Morris  County. 

William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

Philip  F.  Keil,  Demonstration  Agent  for  Bur- 
lington County. 


May  D.  Kemp,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

L.  F.  Merrill,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for  Bergen 
County. 

Adelia  F,  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cumberland  County. 

Lena  R.  Pierce,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

Regine  Porges,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic. 

Caroline  R.  Simons,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Camden. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cape  May  County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Louisa  Vanuxem,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Newark. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  Wettyen,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 


(3) 


CONTENTS 


j 


PAGE 

The  Requirements  of  the  Law 5 

Registrations  6 

Tonnage  of  Feeding  Stuffs  Sold  6 

Inspection  7 

Examination  7 

Results  of  the  Inspection 8 

The  Selection  of  Feeding  Stuffs  9 

Summary  of  the  Results  of  the  Inspection 11 

Cottonseed  Meal  12 

Cottonseed  Feed  12 

Linseed  Meal  13 

Laxo  Cake  Meal  13 

Corn  Gluten  Feed  13 

Corn  Gluten  Meal  14 

Hominy  Feed  14 

Brewers’  Dried  Grains  15 

Distillers’  Dried  Grains  15 

Malt  Sprouts  16 

Buckwheat  Feed  16 

Buckwheat  Middlings  16 

Buckwheat  Offal  17 

Corn  Bran  17 

Corn  Feed  Meal  17 

Corn  and  Cob  Meal  18 

Corn  and  Oats  18 

Rye  Bran  19 

Rye  Middlings  19 

Wheat  Bran  20 

Wheat  Middlings  23 

Wheat  Feeding  Flour 26 

Alfalfa  Meal  26 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  27 

Cocoanut  Meal  27 

Copra  Cake  Meal  27 

Peanut  Oil  Meal  27 

Oat  Feed  28 

Reground  Oat  Hulls 28 

Rye  Feed  28 

Wheat  Feed  28 

Wheat  and  Rye  Middlings  29 

Badger  Fancy  Middlings  29 

P'eed  Mixtures  30 

New  Jersey  Manufacturers  44 

Poultry  Foods  49 

New  Jersey  Manufacturers  56 

Calf  Meals  68 

Poultry  Meat  69 

Registrations  for  Year  1918 70 


4 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS 
BULLETIN  327 

MAY  1,  1918. 

COMMERCIAL  FEEDING  STUFFS  AND  REGISTRATIONS 

FOR  1918 


By 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  State  Chemist^ 

The  law  entitled  “An  Act  Concerning  Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs’' 
requires  an  annual  inspection  of  the  materials  on  sale  in  this  state 
and  the  publication  of  the  results  obtained.  In  accordance  with 
these  requirements  the  inspection  was  made  and  the  results  ob- 
tained are  herewith  presented. 

The  Requirements  of  the  Law 

The  object  of  the  law  may  be  stated  in  one  word — protection, 
and  it  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  consumer  and  to  the  honest 
manufacturer.  In  order  to  accomplish  this  desired  result,  the  fol- 
lowing requirements  are  given: 

1.  A statement  attached  to  the  material  which  will  certify  the 
name  and  address  of  the  party  responsible  for  placing  the  commodity 
on  the  market ; the  minimum  content  of  protein,  the  minimum  con- 
tent of  fat,  the  maximum  content  of  crude  fiber,  and  the  specific 
name  of  each  ingredient  contained  in  the  feed. 

2.  The  registration  annually  of  the  information  to  be  attached  to 
the  feed. 

3.  The  inspection  of  the  materials  as  sold  and  the  publication  of 
the  results  of  the  inspection. 

It  is  apparent  that  all  of  the  above . requirements  are  necessary, 
but  the  most  important  to  the  consumer  is  the  one  relating  to  the 
statements  required  to  be  attached  to  the  materials  as  sold.  These 
statements  should  be  closely  studied,  since  the  value  of  a feed  for 
any  particular  purpose  not  only  depends  upon  its  content  of  protein. 


^The  chemical  analyses  were  made  by  Ralph  L.  Willis,  Claude  S.  Clarkson 
and  Archie  C.  Wark. 

5 


6 New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

fat  and  fiber,  but  also  upon  the  materials  from  which  these  nutri- 
ents are  derived.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  because  a 
material  is  properly  branded  it  is  not  necessarily  an  economical  feed, 
since  the  law  does  not  prohibit  the  use  of  any  material  that  is  not 
injurious,  nor  does  it  regulate  the  proportionate  amounts  of  the 
various  ingredients  used. 

Registrations 

The  law  requires  an  annual  registration  of  the  feeding  stuffs  that 
will  be  offered  for  sale,  and  in  accordance  with  this  requirement 
469  manufacturers  and  jobbers  registered  2553  brands. 

During  the  regular  inspection,  39  brands  were  located  which  had 
not  been  registered,  and  the  parties  having  the  materials  were  noti- 
fied of  the  requirement  necessary  to  be  attended  to  before  sales 
could  be  legally  made.  Registrations  were  received  for  most  of 
these  brands  within  a short  time.  This  condition  was  an  improve- 
ment over  that  reported  for  the  preceding  inspection,  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that,  as  a rule,  the  manufacturers  are  attending  to  this  ques- 
tion at  the  proper  time.  The  chief  offenders  are  the  local  manufac- 
turers, but  whether  it  is  from  a lack  of  knowledge  as  to  the  require- 
ment or  for  any  other  reason,  it  is  a question  that  should  be  carefully 
considered,  so  that  the  registrations  may  be  made  at  the  proper  time. 

On  account  of  the  present  conditions  of  the  trade,  several  requests 
have  been  received  to  re-register  brands  with  a lower  guarantee  than 
had  been  previously  registered.  In  many  cases  these  requests  have 
been  caused  by  a federal  regulation  regarding  the  use  of  certain 
materials,  or  on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  certain  materials 
that  had  been  previously  used  in  the  formula.  We  appreciate 
the  condition  and  we  will  cooperate  in  every  manner  possible, 
but  since  the  law  distinctly  states  “a  brand  name  once  registered 
shall  not  be  changed  to  a lower  grade  at  any  subsequent  registra- 
tion,"" we  have  no  authority  to  accept  a registration  if  it  is  a lowering 
of  the  standard.  When  such  changes  are  necessary  the  brand  name 
can  be  changed  in  some  way  or  a new  brand  name  can  be  given. 
The  adoption  of  either  of  these  methods  will  fulfill  the  object  of  the 
manufacturer  and  will  also  meet  the  requirements  of  the  state  law. 

Tonnage  of  Feeding  Stuffs  Sold 

Manufacturers  and  those  responsible  for  feeding  stuffs  sold  in 
this  state  are  required  to  render,  on  July  1 and  January  1 of  each 
year,  reports  showing  the  total  tonnage  sold  during  the  six  months 
preceding  these  dates.  Table  1 is  a summary  of  the  reports  received 
during  the  past  five  years.  ' 


Bulletin  327  7 

Table  1 !-  ; ! 

Summary  of  Tonnage  Reports 


Year 

July  Reports 

January  Reports 

Total  for  the  Year 

1913 

93,664.17 

102.560.00 

196,224.17 

1914 

88.192.50 

114,508.73 

202,701.23 

1915 

103,626.91 

124,563.34 

228,190.25 

1916 

111,910.84 

123,437.16 

235,348.00 

1917 

114,939.37 

119,101.06 

234,040.43 

Reports  have  been  issued  by  other  departments  which  show  a 
large  decrease  in  the  livestock  in  this  state,  but  according  to  the 
figures  tabulated,  the  sales  for  the  year  1917  were  nearly  99.5  per 
cent  of  those  reported  for  1916  and  about  102.5  per  cent  of  those 
reported  for  1915.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  tonnage  sold 
unless  a system  of  heavier  feeding  was  practiced  or  home-grown 
feeding  stuffs  were  replaced  to  a greater  extent  by  commercial  feeds. 

Inspection 

The  inspection  during  the  past  year  was  conducted  in  the  same 
general  manner  as  during  previous  years,  but  many  conditions  de- 
veloped which  made  it  the  most  complicated  one  in  the  experience 
of  these  inspections.  The  quantity  of  feeding  stuffs  in  stock  at  any 
place  was  comparatively  small,  and  in  many  instances  there  was 
no  stock.  Consequently,  when  a shipment  was  received  it  was 
quickly  delivered  to  the  various  customers.  This  condition  caused 
the  inspector  additional  work  in  order  to  secure  the  samples.  By 
close  application  to  the  work,  we  feel  not  only  that  representative 
samples  were  secured  but  that  all  of  the  different  brands  sold  in  an 
appreciable  quantity  were  represented  in  the  collection. 

In  addition  to  the  difficulty  stated,  just  before  the  inspection  was 
started  one  of  the  inspectors  resigned,  and  as  it  was  impossible  to 
fill  the  position  immediately,  the  itinerary  had  to  be  arranged  so 
that  the  territory  could  be  covered  by  one  man.  In  accordance  with 
this  arrangement  the  samples  were  collected  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Cray. 

During  the  inspection  1059  samples  were  officially  collected,  and 
45  samples  were  received  from  individuals.  Every  county  in  the 
state  was  visited  and  the  samples  were  received  from  297  dealers 
and  consumers,  whose  addresses  include  the  names  of  160  towns 
and  cities. 

Examination 

Every  sample  reported  was  examined  by  the  use  of  the  official 
methods  adopted  by  the  Association  of  Official  Agricultural  Chem- 
ists in  order  to  determine  the  content  of  protein,  fat  and  fiber.  The 


8 New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

microscopical  examinations  were  not  made  this  year  because  the 
member  of  the  staff  who  had  the  required  experience  in  this  kind  of 
work  was  called  for  service  in  the  army.  The  results  of  these 
examinations  and  the  ingredients  guaranteed  are  to  be  found  on  the 
following  pages. 

Results  of  the  Inspection 

The  total  number  of  samples  examined  was  977,  and  of  this  num- 
ber 932  samples  were  collected  by  our  official  inspector  in  the  man- 
ner as  prescribed  in  the  law.  The  45  samples  submitted  by  individ- 
uals were  reported  directly  to  those  requesting  the  analyses,  and 
the  results  are  not  published  in  this  report.  From  the  examination 
of  the  official  samples  it  was  found  that  260,  or  27.9  per  cent,  did 
not  substantially  satisfy  the  guarantees  given  for  the  content  of 
protein,  fat  and  fiber.  The  deficiencies  found  consisted  of  the  fol- 
lowing : protein,  87 ; fat,  83 ; and  fiber,  151;  207  samples  being 
deficient  in  one  nutrient,  45  deficient  in  two  nutrients,  and  8 deficient 
in  the  three  nutrients.  The  above  figures  show  that,  taken  as  a 
whole,  there  was  an  improvement  in  the  character  of  the  feeds  sold 
during  the  past  year  when  compared  with  the  results  reported  for 
the  preceding  inspection.  This  is  encouraging,  but  there  is  still  a 
large  percentage  of  deficiencies  to  be  eliminated  before  the  condition 
can  be  considered  entirely  satisfactory.  Table  2 gives  a comparison 
of  the  deficiencies  found  in  the  last  five  inspections. 

Table  2 

Statement  of  Deficiencies 


Inspection 

Samples 

Examined 

Per  Cent 
of  Samples 
Deficient 

Per  Cent  of  Samples  Deficient  in — 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

1914 

740 

17.7 

8.2 

5.4 

7.2 

1915 

920 

17.2 

6.7 

6.8 

6.6 

1916 

1102 

26.6 

9.3 

9.3 

14.0 

1917 

1103 

32.3 

10.0 

9.3 

19.6 

1918 

i 932 

27.9 

9.3 

8.9 

16.2 

A study  of  the  question  as  to  the  composition  of  the  animal  pro- 
ducts, such  as  digester  tankage  and  meat  scrap  or  meat  meal,  was 
made  by  the  Association  of  Feed  Control  Officials  of  the  United 
States,  and  as  a result  of  this  study  it  was  agreed  that  if  these 
products  contained  more  than  10  per  cent  of  phosphoric  acid,  the 
brand  name  of  the  material  must  contain  information  showing  that 
bone  is  present  in  a larger  proportion  than  is  usually  found  in  these 
products  when  true  to  their  name.  In  order  to  ascertain  this  in- 


Bulletin  327 


9 


formation,  each  sample  of  the  animal  products  was  examined  for 
its  content  of  phosphoric  acid  and  the  results  are  tabulated.  Six 
samples  were  not  properly  branded,  since  they  contained  an  excess 
of  bone  which  was  not  indicated  by  the  brand  name. 

The  Selection  of  Feeding  Stuffs 

The  value  of  a feeding  stuff  depends  upon  the  amount  of  its 
nutrients  which  an  animal  can,  under  normal  conditions,  digest  and 
assimilate  for  the  purpose  of  building  up  the  growth,  repairing  the 
natural  waste  of  the  body  and  producing  energy. 

Feeds,  generally  speaking,  contain  more  or  less  of  indigestible 
matter  which  does  not  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  body,  and  on 
account  of  this  condition  the  purchase  of  a feed  that  will  give  the 
maximum  results  requires  considerable  skill  on  the  part  of  the 
stock  feeder. 

Concentrated  feeding  stuffs  are  generally  purchased  for  the  pur- 
pose of  supplementing  the  materials  raised  on  the  farm,  and  as  such 
materials  usually  contain  low  percentages  of  protein  and  fat,  the 
selection  of  a material  should  be  governed  by  its  content  of  these 
nutrients.  In  all  classes  of  feed,  high  percentages  of  protein  and  fat 
indicate  a high  feeding  value,  while  a high  percentage  of  fiber  indi- 
cates a low  feeding  value.  In  such  feeds  the  amount  of  protein 
should  determine  the  price  to  be  paid,  other  things  being  equal,  and 
if  a selection  is  to  be  made  between  two  feeds  having  the  same 
amount  of  protein  and  fat,  the  one  containing  the  smaller  amount  of 
fiber  is  to  be  preferred. 

If  a mixed  feed  is  to  be  selected,  valuable  information  could  be 
obtained  by  comparing  the  analyses  of  a number  of  feeds,  including 
the  ingredients  used  in  preparing  the  mixtures.  Not  much  depend- 
ence can  be  placed  upon  the  price  of  a feed  as  a guide  to  its  feeding 
value,  since  the  selling  price  does  not,  as  a rule,  bear  any  relation  to 
the  content  of  the  nutrients  present.  In  accordance  with  this  it  is 
quite  evident  that  the  only  safe  rule  to  follow  is  to  compare  the 
feeds  and  their  selling  prices. 

The  question  of  the  cost  of  feeding  stuffs  has  always  been  one 
that  needed  attention,  and  if  this  was  true  for  the  past  years  it  is 
certainly  true  in  these  times  of  abnormal  prices.  Under  the  present 
conditions  attention  to  the  cost  of  a material  is  one  of  the  most 
important  to  the  consumer,  since  it  may  mean  either  the  success  or 
failure  of  the  desired  object  of  purchasing  the  material.  Those 
who  have  been  purchasing  feeding  stuffs  need  not  be  reminded  of 
the  increase  in  the  cost  of  these  materials  during  the  past  two  years, 
but  it  may  emphasize  the  statements  made  above  in  regard  to  this 


10 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

question  if  the  averages  of  some  figures  which  were  collected  by  our 
inspectors  during  the  past  three  years  are  tabulated.  Table  3 gives 
the  average  retail  selling  prices  of  some  of  the  more  important  feed- 
ing stuffs  as  they  have  been  obtained  and  reported  during  the  past 
three  years. 

Table  3 

A Comparison  of  the  Average  Retail  Selling  Prices 


A^•era.^e  Per  Ton  During  the 
Inspection  of 


1916 

1917 

1918 

Alfalfa  Meal  

$31.78 

1 $32.50 

$47.00 

Brewers’  Dried  Grains  

29.25 

! 29.41 

52.80 

Buckwheat  Feed  

25.93 

i 39.00 

i 54.00 

Buckwheat  Middlings  

29.00 

34.00 

51.22 

Cocoanut  Meal  

28.00 

33.00 

48.00 

Corn  Bran  

27.40 

30.10 

44.00 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

33.22 

40.33 

81.10 

Corn  Gluten  Feed 

30.11 

36.30 

59.28 

Cottonseed  Meal  

37.75 

46.91 

59.00 

Distillers’  Dried  Grains  (Corn)  

34.50. 

36.00 

63.75 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  

27.25 

37.00 

49.25 

flominv  Feed  ; . . . . 

31.73 

40.40 

65.43 

Linseed  Oil  Meal  

43.38 

44.12  i 

60.07 

Malt  Sprouts  

28.17 

32.00  i 

44.50 

Meat  Meal  ! 

57.30  : 

58.00  i 

96.40 

Peanut  Oil  Meal  

34.50  j 

35.00  ! 

59.00 

Kve  Bran  

26.33 

29.57  i 

42.80 

Kve  Feed  

32.00 

33.00 

43.00 

live  Middlings  

30.94 

35.31 

50.68 

Wheat  Bran  

28.16  ' 

32.30 

45.37 

Wheat  Feed  

28.58  ^ 

35.00 

46.60 

Wheat  Feeding  Flour  

37.73  : 

41.30 

68.00 

Wheat  Middlings  ; 

33.11 

38.47 

57.12 

Table  4 is  a summary  of  the  inspection  and  gives  the  average 
composition  of  the  various  materials  examined,  with  the  exception 
of  Calf  Meals,  Feed  Mixtures  and  Poultry  Foods.  The  reason  the 
averages  are  not  given  for  these  three  classes  of  feeds  is  on  account 
of  the  variability  of  the  different  brands  which  are  reported  under 
tiieir  respective  headings.  In  addition  to  the  average  composition, 
tiie  average  selling  prices  and  the  deficiencies  are  noted. 

In  preparing  this  tabulation  the  Protein  as  found  is  considered 
to  satisfy  its  guarantee  if  it  is  not  more  than  1 per  cent  below  it.  An 
allowance  of  0.5  per  cent  is  also  made  for  the  Fat  and  the  Fiber 
determinations. 


Bulletin  327 

Table  4 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  RESUJLTS  OF  THE  INSPECTION 


11 


Feeding  Stuff 


Alfalfa  Meal  

Brewers’  Dried  Grains  

Buckwheat  Feed  

Buckwheat  Middlings  

Buckwheat  Oft'al  

Calf  ^[eal  

Cocoanut  Meal  

Copra  Cake  Meal  

Cottonseed  Feed  

Cottonseed  Meal  

Corn  Bran  

Corn  Feed  iNIeal 

Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Corn  Gluten  iNIeal  

Corn  and  Cob  Meal  

Corn  and  Oats  

Distillers’  Dried  Grains — Corn  

Distillers’  Dried  Grains — Rye  

Distillers’  Dried  Grains — Yeast  

Dried  Beet  Pulp  

Feed  Mixtures  

Fish  Scrap  , 

Hominy  Feed  

Laxo  Cake  IMeal  

Linseed  Oil  IMeal  

iMalt  Sprouts  

Meat  Meals  

Oat  Feed  (largely  oat  hulls)  

Oat  PIulls,  reground  

Peanut  Oil  Meal  

Poultry  Bone  

Poultr'y  Foods  

Rye  Bran  

Rye  I'eed  

Rye  Middlings  

Tankage,  digester  

Wheat  Bran  

\Mieat  Feeding  Flour  

Wheat  Feed  

\^'heat  Middlings  

Wheat  and  Rye  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  and  Maizo  Red  Dog  Flour 

1 Phosphoric  acid  17.51% 

- Phos])horic  acid  9.92% 

” Phosphoric  acid  23.62% 

Phosphoric  acid  7.57% 


Average 

Composition 


j No.  of  Sarnples 
Deficient  in — 


Xumber  of 

Samples  Examine 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

I 

Fiber 

Average  Retail  S( 

Price  per  Ton 

Xumber  of  Samp] 

Satisfied  Guarant 

Protein  1 

Fat 

Fiber 

One  Nutrient 

Two  Xutrients 

1 Three  Xutrients  j 

% 

% 

% 

% 

$ 

1 

12 

8.05 

1 15.30 

) 1.6C 

1 28.20 

1 47.00 

1 1C 

1 1 

. 2 

1 

1 

'|.. 

1 

17 

7.70 

1 24.83 

1 6.49 

' 14.58 

; 52.80 

1 S 

1 c 

6 

1 3 

5 

2 

12.96 

1 21.88 

; 5.39 

2.89 

' 54.00 

1 

1 

. 1 

1 

14 

13.00 

r 30.64 

7.77 

4.36 

51.22 

7 

4 

■ 2 

2 

6 

1 

7 

11.03 

19.30 

5.01 

16.10 

38.30 

4 

1 

3 

2 

1 

8 

189.71 

3 

3 

. 1 

4 

2 

3 

3 

10.59 

20.00 

8.14 

9.58 

48.00 

1 

2 

2 

2 

7.40 

20.50 

8.61 

9.65 

50.00 

2 

9 

7.67 

24.12 

4.57 

20.35 

44.60 

,6 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

18 

7.58 

37.88 

6.65 

10.54 

59.00 

12 

5 

1 

6 

2 

10.20 

9.38 

5.99 

10.06 

44.00 

2 

8 

11.81 

9.12 

4.76 

2.01 

81.10 

6 

2 

2 

18 

8.58 

25.53 

2.09 

6.85 

59.28 

16 

1 

1 

2 

1 

8.56 

39.69 

0.99 

1.18 

68.00 

1 

14 

11.81 

7.40 

3.51 

5.30 

56.20 

13 

1 

1 

22 

11.25 

10.57 

4.42 

3.47 

73.55; 

19 

3 

3 

4 

7.03 

30.92 

9.11 

11.39 

63.75 

2 

1 

1 

2 

11 

; 5.97 

18.44 

1 6.98 

18.33 

1 

1.  . 

1 

1 

1 

4 

6.95 

20.66 

j 6.73 

17.12 

48.501 

1 1 

1 

3 

2 

1 1 

5 

8.31 

9.11 

0.66 

19.54 

49.25 

5 

275 

56.00 

194 

15 

18 

64 

66 

1 

1-- 

1 

2 

6.07 

45.41 

2.13 

1 _ _ 

i*4.63 

1 

1 

2 

14 

8.98 

11.26 

7.56 

4.19 

65.43 

12 

1 

1 

2| 

1 

9.97 

26.56 

7.01 

9.86 

1 

13 

9.39 

32.76 

6.84 

7.88 

60.07 

10 

3 

1 

3 

7.88 

24.33 

1.33 

12.54 

44.50 

2 

1 

1 

••1 

1 

20 

6.99 

46.58 

14.31 

- . . 

*4.82 

11 

9 

3 

6.93 

3.03 

1.18 

30.41 

31.50 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

7.26 

7.25 

2.05 

25.06 

1 

1 

1 

7.40 

29.81 

12.12 

9.11 

59.00 

1 

1 

1 

6.44 1 

21.88 

4.99 

*3.95 

1 

1 

239 

79.93| 

190 

22 

20 

.23 

36 

10 

3 

14 

11.96 

15.53 

2.53 

4.45 

42.80 

8 

1 

5 

6 

1 

12.32 

14.44 

2.34 

2.83 

43.00 

1 

20 

12.24 

14.04 

2.60 

3.17 

50.68 

14 

1 

5 

6 

•■1 

1 

6.52 

56.75 

8.92 

4 _ _ 

*5.18 

1 

1 

68 

10.01 

15.11 

4.29 

9.42 

45.37 

45 

2 

15 

12 

17 

6 

6 

9.69 

17.30 

4.98 

3.26 

68.001 

5 

1 

1 

6 

8.95 

16.19 

4.55 

7.61 

46.60 

6 

69 

10.69 

16.35 

4.77 

5.16  , 

57.12 

49 

2 

7 

12 

19 

1 

2 : 

10.60 

17.26 

4.67 

6.23  , 

56.25 

2 

1 

7.30 

13.50 

7.72 

3.63  ( 

S4.00 

1 

•• 

Average  selling  price  per  cwt. 


12 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

COTTONSEED  MEAL 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Tobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18885 

Goodlow  Cottonseed  Meal  

Burlington  .... 

6.24 

41.50 

36.00 

8.44 

5.00 

8.57 

16.00 

18956 

Goodlow  Cottonseed  Meal 

Mt.  Holly  

5.93 

39.88 

36.00 

6.90 

5.00 

9.90 

16.00 

F.  W.  Brode  & Co.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Dover  

7.15 

37.31 

38.62 

7.44 

6.00 

9.66 

12.00 

1 nyfvf, 

Plainfield  

8.06 

35.13 

38.62 

7.30 

6.00 

11.40 

12.00 

18281 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

Dover  

7.14 

40.99 

41.00 

6.46 

6.00 

9.71 

10.00 

18717 

Newark  

7.30 

42.56 

41.00 

1 6.76 

6.00 

8.41 

1 

[10.00 

1 

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Cincinnati,  0. 

18502 

Buckeye  Good  Cottonseed  Meal  

Flemington  .... 

7.82 

36.63 

36.00 

6.05 

5.00 

|12.49 

|14.00 

S.  P.  Davis,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

1 

1 

18049 

Goodluck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  .... 

Camden  

7.67 

42.00 

41.00 

6.59 

6.00 

6.47 

1 9,00 

18552 

Beauty  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

Pennington 

7.32 

35.94 

36.00 

6.84 

6.00 

12.65 

[12.00 

180021 

r^nlton ATeal  

Vineland  

8.73 

34.94 

36.00 

7.63 

6.00 

[14.00 

1 

Empire  Grain  & Elevator  Co.,  Binghamton, 

1 

1 10.08 

1 

N.  Y. 

1 

1 i 

18251 

Cottonseed  Meal  

Andover  

8.01 

36.81 

38.50 

7.17 

6.00 

1 

111.19 

[12.00 

1 

J.  M.  Macdonald,  Cincinnati,  0. 

[ 1 

18235 

Tsin^^dc^  Primp  r^nffon ‘ippfl  IVTpal  .. 

Morristown 

8.08 

1 

39.06 

38.60 

6.35 

6.00 

1 

[12.00 

W.  C.  Nothern,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

1 

1 9.84 

1 1 

18224 

Butterfly  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

Morristown  . . . 

8.68 

37.88 

38.62 

6.20 

6.00 

|10.30 

12.00 

Geo.  B.  Robinson,  Jr.,  New  York  City. 

1 

18817 

Cottonseed  Meal  

Jamesburg  .... 

7.04 

35.50 

36.00 

6.76 

6.00 

111.13 

15.00 

J.  E.  Soper  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 

1 

18826 

Puritan  Cottonseed  Meal  

Long  Branch  . . 

9.07 

35.69 

36.00 

3.57 

5.00 

1 14.48 

15.00 

Union  Seed  & P'ertilizer  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

1 

18185 

American  Red  Tag  Cottonseed  Meal... 

Ridgewood  .... 

7.76 

38.31 

38.62 

6.03 

6.00 

10.91 

11.50 

18294 

Surety  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

Branchville  .... 

7.01 

34.19 

36.00 

6.13 

5.50 

12.11 

14.00 

18740 

Surety  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

Jersey  City  . . . 

7.41 

37.50 

36.00 

7.09 

5.50 

10.42 

14.00 

Average  

7.58 

37.88 

6.65 

10.54 

COTTONSEED  FEED 


18257 

18952 

18873 
18307 

18915 

18309 

18916 

18479 

18874 


M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

M.  F.  B.  Cottonseed  Feed  

M.  F.  B.  Cottonseed  Feed  

F.  W.  Brode  & Co.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Jay  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed  

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Cincinnati,  O. 

Buco  Cottonseed  Feed  

C.  L.  Montgomery  & Co.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Star  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed  

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

Columbia  Cottonseed  Feed  

Columbia  Cottonseed  Feed  

S.  C.  Woolman  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Globe  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed  

Creanio  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 


Newton  

Mt.  Holly  

Columbus  

Sussex  

Mt.  Holly  

Sussex  

Mt.  Holly  

Lambertville  . . . 
Columbus  


9.26 

17.56 

20.0o| 

3.84 

3.00 

22.89 

26.00 

8.24] 

19.81 

20.00| 

1 

4.10 

3.00 

23.28 

26.00 

8.44[37.00 

I 

36.00[ 

6.34 

5.00 

11.52 

14.00 

6.53 

[22.13 

j 

20.00[ 

4.02 

3.50 

1 

22.14 

27.00 

5.07[34.56 

36.00| 

5.18 

1 

6.00 

[16.37 

14.00 

7.91 

[25.25 

20.56| 

5.20 

3.0o' 

[16.95 

25.00 

?' 

c^ 

_ 00 

[20.31 

20.56[ 

1 

4.27 

3.00[24.18 

25.00 

8.67 

18.75 

1 

20.00[ 

3.90 

3.50 

23.04 

27.00 

8.19 

21.69 

20.00| 

4.24 

4.00 

1 

22.74 

1 

25.00 

7.67 

24.12 

1 

1 

4.57 

1 

1 

(20.35 

Average 


Bulletin  327 

LINSEED  MEAL 


13 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

American  Linseed  Co.,  New  York  City. 

8.38 

36.13 

34.00 

5.56 

5.00 

7.11 

8.00 

18283 

8.84 

33.25 

34.00 

5.84 

5.00 

8.25 

8.00 

American  Milling  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

18006 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

Plainsboro  .... 

9.31 

34.19 

34.00 

6.20 

5.00 

7.73 

8.00 

18151 

Amco  Old  Process  Linseed  Meal  and 

O P Oil  PcpH  

Paterson  

9.99 

29.06 

30.00 

7.22 

5.00 

9.12 

10.00 

18646 

Amco  Old  Process  Linseed  Meal  and 

O P SoTPpni‘ng’<;  Oil  Peed  

Newark  

8.74 

29.31 

30.00 

6.55 

5.00 

9.28 

10.00 

Archer-Daniels  Linseed  Co.,  Minneapolis, 

i 

1 

Minn. 

18238 

Old  Process  Ground  Oil  Cake 

Morristown  . . . 

10.62 

32.69 

33.00 

6.80 

6.00 

7.32 

10.00 

Spencer  Kellogg  & Son,  Inc.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

18147 

Pure  Old  Process  Oil  Meal  

Passaic  

10.06 

31.56 

33.00 

6.11 

5.00 

7.98 

10.00 

18653 

Pure  Old  Process  Oil  Meal  

Newark  

8.03 

35.81 

33.00 

6.19 

5.00 

7.52 

10.00 

Mann  Bros.  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

1 

1 

18345 

Pure  Old  Process  Oil  Meal  

Bernardsville  . . 

9.86 

32.50 

34.00 

8.10 

6.00 

7.43 

10.00 

18610 

Pure  Old  Process  Oil  Meal  

Newark  

9.77 

31.50 

34.00 

7.61 

6.00 

7.29 

10.00 

Midland  Linseed  Products  Co.,  Minneapo- 

lis, Minn. 

18288 

Pure  Old  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Branchville  .... 

9.78 

33.19 

32.00 

7.47 

5.00 

7.28 

9.50 

18689 

Pure  Old  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Caldwell  

10.11 

33.31 

29.00 

7.64 

5.00 

8.16 

9.50 

Sherwin-Williams  Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

18530 

S.  W.  C.  Linseed  Oil  Meal 

Pennington  .... 

8.55 

33.38 

33.00 

7.61 

6.00 

7.94 

8.00 

Average  

9.39 

32.76 

6.84 

7.88 

LAXO  CAKE  MEAL 


Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

1 1 1 

1 1 

18614 

Old  Process  Laxo  Cake  Meal 

Newark  

9.97l26.56|25.0o|  7.01 

6.00|  9.86|12.00 

CORN  GLUTEN  FEED 


American  Maize  Products  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

1 

I 

18018 

Cream  of  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Camden  

8.29 

22.75 

23.00 

2.08 

1.50 

6.32 

8.50 

18786 

Cream  of  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

Townley  

8.22 

24.88 

23.00 

1.46 

1.50 

5.94 

8.00 

Corn  Products  Refining  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

18041 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Camden  

8.54 

30.31 

23.00 

1.39 

1.00 

5.79 

8.50 

18655 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Newark  

9.96 

27.13 

23.00 

2.22 

1.00 

5.85 

8.50 

18200 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Roonton  

7.33 

24.94 

23.00 

4.12 

1.00 

7.93 

8.50 

18329 

Globe  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Hamburg  . . 

9.77 

26.75 

23.00 

1.17 

1.00 

7.20 

8.50 

18788 

Globe  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Townley  

7.66 

24.19 

23.00 

2.90 

1.00 

8.73 

8.50 

Douglas  Co.,  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa. 

18514. 

. Douglas  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Titusville  

10.71 

25.44 

23.00 

1.90 

1.00 

6.81 

8.00 

18806 

Douglas  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Fdizabeth  

8.64 

23.90 

23.00 

1.84 

1.00 

7.14 

8.00 

Grain  Products  Sales  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18312 

Union  Gluten  Feed  

Lafayette  

9.33 

23.25 

23.00 

2.69 

1.00 

6.15 

8.50 

14  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

CORN  GLUTEN  FEED  — (Continued) 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

, 

Guaranteed 

1 Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Nowak  Milling  Corporation,  BufYalo,  N.  Y. 

1 

1 

18168 

Paterson  

8.56 

29.06 

23.00 

1.20 

1.00 

6.56 

8.50 

Phelps  & Sibley  Co.,  Cuba,  N.  Y. 

18076 

Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Hackensack  . . . 

9.75 

26.31 

23.00 

1.09 

1.00 

7.18 

8.50 

Piel  Bros.  Starch  Co.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

1 

1 

18372 

P.  Bros.  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Hackettstown  . . 

7.22 

25.38 

23.00 

1.71 

2.00 

6.90 

8.00 

18674 

P.  Bros.  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Newark  

8.63 

26.06 

23.00 

1.67 

2.00 

6.73 

8.00 

Rosekrans-Snyder  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18753 

Jenks  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Somerville  .... 

8.33 

25.04 

22.00 

2.09 

3.00 

6.87 

8.00 

A.  E.  Staley  Mfg.  Co.,  Decatur,  111. 

18400 

Staley’s  Gnrr)  Gluten  FeeH  

Vail  

6.66 

26.56 

23.00 

2.27 

2.50 

6.54 

12.00 

Union  Starch  & Refining  Co.,  Edinburg, 

Ind. 

18553 

Union  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Pennington  .... 

8.10 

21.75 

23.00 

2.85 

3.00 

7.73 

8.00 

C.  W.  Wager  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

18487 

Clinton  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

Lambertville  . . . 

8.69 

25.88 

23.00 

2.95 

3.00 

6.84j 

1 8.00 

A irpr  Cl  orp* 

8.58 

25.53 

2.09 

i 

6.85 

! 



CORN  GLUTEN  MEAL 

18284 

Corn  Products  Refining  Co.,  New  York  City.  • 

Diamond  Corn  Gluten  Meal  Dover  

1 1 

8.56|39.69|40.00 

1 

0.99|  1.00 

l.lfil  4.0( 

HOMINY  FEED 

American  Hominy  Co.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

18001 

Homco  Hominy  Feed  

Plainsboro  .... 

8.42 

10.88 

10.00 

9.20 

6.00 

5.20 

7.00 

18220 

Homco  Hominy  Feed  

Mountain  View. 

6.56 

11.06 

10.00 

9.03 

6.00 

5.12 

7.00 

M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18256 

Hominy  Feed  

Newton  

10.27 

11.75 

9.00 

6.75 

6.00 

2.55 

10.00 

Buffalo  Cereal  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

1 

18128 

Bufceco  Hominy  Feed  

Paterson  

10.84 

11.38 

10.00 

7.34 

6.00 

3.841 

5.00 

18691 

Bufceco  Hominy  Feed  

Caldwell  

10.48 

11.38 

10.00 

7.12 

6.00 

3.15 

1 

5.00 

Evans  Milling  Co.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

1 

1 

i 

18818 

Evans  Pure  White  Hominy  Feed  

Jamesburg  .... 

9.12 

11.44 

10.00 

6.89 

7.50 

3.381 

7.00 

Chas.  A.  Krause  MTg  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

1 

1 

18003 

Badger  Hominy  Feed  

Plainsboro  .... 

9.74 

11.56 

10.00 

8.02 

6.00 

4.20i 

5.00 

18961 

Badger  Hominy  Feed  

Bridgeton  

9.04 

11.13 

10.00 

7.45 

6.00 

5.93] 

1 

i 5.00 

Miner-Hillard  Milling  Co.,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa. 

1 

18115 

Steam  Conked  Hominy  Feed  

Paterson  

9.46 

11.25 

10.00 

6.35 

5.00 

4.47 

1 5.00 

18290 

Steam  Cooked  Hominy  Feed  

Branchville  .... 

7.80 

11.19 

10.00 

6.11 

5.00 

1 

3.90 

1 

5.00 

National  Feed  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

1 

18537 

Pure  Hominy  Feed  

Hopewell  

9.02 

11.56 

10.50 

8.73 

8.50 

3.53110.00 

Patent  Cereals  Co.,  Geneva,  N.  Y. 

i 

18554 

Hominy  Feed  

Pennington  . . . 

8.53 

12.38 

10.00 

6.00 

6.00 

4.82 

5.00 

C.  W.  Wagar  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

18875 

Pure  Hominy  Feed 

Columbus  

8.29 

11.31 

9.00 

9.15 

I 6.50| 

5.12] 

7.00 

Walters  Milling  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

180050 

White  Hominy  Feed  

Woodbridge  . . . 

8.12 

9.38 

8.00 

7.65 

O 

o 

3.42| 

1 

00 

o 

o 

Averatre 

8.98 

11.26 

7.56 

1 

1 

1 

4.19 

1 

1 

Bulletin  327 

BREWERS’  DRIED  GRAINS 


15 


Station  \'ninher 

]tlAXUFACTURER  OR  JOBBER 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 

Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

1 

j Found 

i 

Guaranteed 

1 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Feund 

Guaranteed 

Atlantic  Export  Co.,  New  York  City. 

1 

18289 

Dr.  Spund’s  Dried  Brewers’  Grains... 

Branchville  

7.66 

24.81 

25.00 

6.68 

6.00 

14.52 

14.00 

18569 

Dr.  Spund’s  Dried  Brewers’  Grains... 

Trenton  

11.89 

21.56 

25.00 

5.95 

6.00 

18.19 

14.00 

M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

6.59 

27.31 

25.00 

7.57 

8.00 

14.37 

15.00 

6.48 

30.94 

25.00 

5.27 

6.00 

12.12 

15.00 

I OO  1 u 

18293 

Crown  Brewers’  Dried  Grains  

Branchville  .... 

6.50 

25.44 

25.00 

7.13 

6.00 

14.12 

15.00 

18780 

Crown.  Brow^r®^  

Plainfield  

6.70 

27.00 

25.00 

6.04 

6.00 

14.50 

15.00 

Empire  Grain  & Elevator  Co.,  Binghamton, 

N.  Y. 

18250 

r^ri^d.  

Andover  

6.43 

16.88 

27.50 

1 6.98 

6.30 

18.42 

15.20 

Farmers  Feed  Co.,  New  York  City. 

l 

18005 

Bull  Brand  Dried  Brewers’  Grains 

Plainsboro  .... 

8.43 

15.84 

27.20 

6.70 

6.30 

19.15 

15.20 

18258 

Bull  BrsTid  Dried  Brewers^  Grciins . • . . 

Npwtnn  

6.89 

26.31 

27.20 

6.45 

6.30 

13.81 

15.20 

J.  C.  Klauder,  Est.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18048 



Camden  

8.72 

25.75 

26.00 

6.83 

6.00 

13.67 

15.00 

18959] 

Dried  Brewers’  Grains  

Cookstown  .... 

7.55 

33.13 

26.00 

7.67 

6.00 

10.65 

15.00 

G.  Krueger  Brewing  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18356 

Dried  Brewers’  Grains  

Murray  Hill  ... 

7.63 

24.50 

24.00 

5.81 

6.50 

10.74 

14.00 

K.  & E.  Xeumond,  Inc.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

18225 

Goldnes  Kalb  Dried  Brewers’  Grains.. 

Morristown 

9.93 

23.88 

24.00 

5.25 

6.00 

14.08 

13.00 

Penn  Grains  & Feed  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18022 

Dripd  r^r^^inQ  

Camden  

7.92 

26.06 

26.00 

7.44 

6.00 

15.27 

12.00 

18744 

Peerless  Brewers’  Dried  Grains  

Belle  Mead  .... 

6.45 

22.75 

26.00 

6.64] 

j 6.00 

15.50 

12.00 

Rosekrans-Snyder  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18752 

Pilsner  Dried  Brewers’  Grains  

Somerville  .... 

7.05 

20.94 

25.00 

6.04 

5.00 

16.96]18.00 

Walters  Milling  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

1 

18503 

Brewers’  Grains  

Flemington  .... 

8.13 

28.94 

24.00] 

1 

j 5.93 

1 

4.00 

O 

o 

00 

00 

A verapre 

7.70' 

24.83 

1 

1 

1 

6.49 

1 

14.58 

1 

] 



1 

DISTILLERS’  DRIED  GRAINS 


18313 

(Largely  from  Corn) 

American  Milling  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

Empire  State  Dairy  Feed  

Lafayette  

] 6.05 

29.^8 

30.00 

1 

1 

1 

11.83 

1 

1 

1 

10.00 

11.45 

14.00 

18221 

Atlas  Feed  & Milling  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

Atlas  Distillers’  Grains  

Little  Falls  ...  . 

8.29 

33.31 

30.00 

8.38 

10.00 

10.93 

14.00 

18536 

Martenis  Bros.,  New  York  City. 

Atexco  Brand  Dried  Distillers’  Grains. 

Hopewell  

8.03 

26.31 

26.00 

6.17 

6.00 

12.35 

17.00 

18311 

S.  F.  Scattergood  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Cornwell  Corn  Distillers’  Grains  

Lafayette  

5.74 

34.19 

30.00 

10.05 

8.00 

10.81 

10.00 

Average  

7.03 

30.92 

9.11 

11.39 

16  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


DISTILLERS’  DRIED  GRAINS — (Continued) 


<D 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

S 

3 

C 

s 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

18140 

(Largely  from  Rye) 

J.  F.  Eby  & Son,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

Corby  Dried  Grains 

Passaic  

5.97 

18.44 

16.00 

1 

6.98 

5.00 

18.33 

22.00 

18146 

(Dried  Yeast  Grains  from  Corn,  Rye, 
Barley  Malt  and  Sprouts,  or  from 
Corn,  Barley  Malt  and  Sprouts) 
Fleischmann  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Fleischmann’s  Dried  Grains — F.  M.  Co. 

Passaic  

8.58 

19.81 

20.00 

6.38 

7.00 

15.55 

19.00 

18223 

Fleischmann’s  Dried  Grains — F.  M.  Co. 

Morristown 

5.94 

24.31 

20.00 

8.44 

7.00 

15.47 

19.00 

18320 

Fleischmann’s  Dried  Grains — I.V.M.Co. 

Sussex  

5.47 

21.00 

19.00 

6.20 

7.00 

18.63 

19.00 

18879 

Fleischmann’s  Dried  Grains — I.V.M.Co. 

Columbus  

7.89 

17.50 

19.00 

5.89 

7.00 

18.83 

19.00 

Average  * 

6.95 

20.66 

6.73 

17.12 

MALT  SPROUTS 


P.  Ballantine  & Sons,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18264 

Malt  Sprouts  

Netcong 

9.53 

22.63 

22.50 

1.45 

0.62 

11.49 

14.95 

Penn  Grains  & Feed  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18538 

Malt  Sprouts  

Hopewell  

7.53 

24.06 

28.76 

1.51 

1.53 

13.18 

12.06 

D.  R.  Worman,  Frenchtown,  N.  J. 

18455 

Malt  Sprouts  

Frenchtown  . . . 

6.56 

26.31 

22.00 

1.02 

0.50 

12.95 

18.00 

Average  

7.88 

24.33 

1.33 

12.54 

BUCKWHEAT  FEED 


18303 

’^The  Manning  Co.,  Sussex,  N.  J 

Sussex  11.65 

20.56  22.00 

5.01 

6.30 

2.02 

18472 

^Jos.  Smith  & Co.,  Stockton,  N.  J. 

Stockton  14.26 

23.19  18.00 

5.76 

3.00 

3.75 

Average  

21.881 

5.39 

2.89 

^ Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Middlings. 
2 Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Offal. 


BUCKWHEAT  MIDDLINGS 


18314 

Armstrong  & Demarest,  Lafayette,  N.  J 

Lafayette  

13.54 

24.50 

26.38 

6.29 

6.52 

1.83 

2.9i 

18414 

Warren  Beaty,  Hackettstown,  N.  J 

Hackettstown  .. 

13.96 

26.94 

30.00 

6.97 

7.00 

1.64 

6.0( 

18381 

^G.  W.  Fisher,  Port  Murray,  N.  J 

Port  Murray  . . 

12.85 

34.63 

32.00 

8.76 

9.00 

3.72 

4.0( 

18383 

G.  W.  Fisher,  Port  Murray,  N.  J 

Port  Murray  . . 

14.34 

30.19 

23.00 

7.60 

6.00 

2.58 

1.0( 

18498 

^Flemington  Jet.  Cereal  & Flour  Mill,  Flem- 
ington,  N.  J 

Flemington  .... 

13.30 

27.44 

24.00 

6.47 

7.00 

4.42 

5.0( 

18395 

T.  B.  TCeener,  Belvidere,  N.  J 

Belvidere  

12.72 

27.50 

26.38 

6.72 

6.86 

4.46 

5.2; 

18427 

^Messier  & Shannon,  Blairstown,  N.  J 

Blairstown  .... 

11.94 

34.56 

30.94 

9.34 

8.60 

4.54 

4.1« 

18413 

^Chas.  C.  Ort,  Hackettstown,  N.  J 

Hackettstown  .. 

12.15 

33.50 

5.00 

8.12 

2.00 

5.27 

30.0( 

Bulletin  327  17 

BUCKWHEAT  MIDDLINGS— (Continued) 


Station  \ umber 

Manufacturer  OR  Jobber 
j AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

1 

Moisture  j 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed  j 

18405 

Wilbert  Stires,  Bridgeville,  N.  J 

Bridgeville  .... 

11.92 

35.44 

22.00 

9.11 

6.00 

2.66 

6.00 

18450 

W.  & W.  E.  Thomas,  Milford,  N.  J 

Milford 

14.64 

26.06 

29.30 

6.54 

c 1 n 

18403 

E.  T.  V'usler,  Hope,  N.  J 

Hope 

11.62 

34.06 

24.49 

R 70 

o.ou 

j.oO 

"t  QO 

0 . 1 u 

O '2 

18418 

^J.  S.  Wiseburn  & Son,  Stephensburg,  N.  J. 

Stephensburg  .. 

11.95 

36.69 

15.00 

o.  / u 

9.68 

O.H-/ 

5.00 

o.OU 

10.91 

z.ov 

25.00 

18458 

D.  R.  Worman,  Frenchtown,  N.  J 

Frenchtown  . . . 

14.65 

26.31 

30.00 

6.48 

7.00 

2.02 

6.00 

18459 

‘D.  R.  Worman,  Frenchtown,  N.  J 

Frenchtown  . . . 

12.39 

31.56 

18.31 

7.97 

2.80 

9.30 

16.00 

Average  

13.00 

30.64 

7.77 

4.36 

^Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Bran. 
^Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Offal. 


^Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Offal — not  included  in  the  average. 
■‘Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Bran — not  included  in  the  average. 


BUCKWHEAT  OFFAL 


18509 

18542 

18517 

18917 

18521 

18384 

18170 


Frank  Bird,  Flemington,  N.  J 

L.  W.  Borland,  High  Bridge,  N.  J 

^G.  G.  MacPherson,  Lebanon,  N.  J 

Reece  & Greenly,  Millville,  Pa 

W.  H.  Reger  & Son,  White  House,  N.  J... 

J.  A.  Tiger,  Califon,  N.  J 

^Wolff  Bros.,  Paterson,  N.  J 


Average  

‘^Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Feed. 
^Material  sold  as  Buckwheat  Grits  Feed. 


1 

Flemington  

7.68 

18.00 

16.00 

5.72 

4.00 

High  Bridge  . . . 

11.44 

18.13 

24.31 

4.47 

1.24 

Lebanon  

13,57 

19.00 

15.00 

4.70 

4.50 

Mt  Holly  

12.55 

16.44 

10.00 

4.33 

2.00 

White  House  . . 

12.31 

24.81 

20.38 

6.10 

3.50 

Califon  

12.36 

22.56 

14.00 

5.84 

4.00 

Paterson  

7.32 

16.19 

16.00 

3.93 

4.00 

11.03 

19.30 

5.01 

I 

14.70'|15.00 
19.53|  3.04 
18.03|  6.00 
22.13|35.00 
11.34|11.58 
6.53|25.64 
20.42|16.00 

16.1o| 


CORN  BRAN 


A.  Cyphers  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18701 

Ground  Corn  Bran  

Newark 

10.59 

9.50 

8.00 

5.30 

5.00 

10.82 

C.  W.  Wagar  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

13-00 

18872 

Middlesex  White  Corn  Bran  

Columbus  

9.81 

9.25 

7.00 

6.68 

4.00 

9.29 

15.00 

Average  

10.20 

9.38 

1 5.99 

10.06 

— ^ 

CORN  FEED  MEAL 


18491 

Geo.  C.  Higgins  & Son,  Three  Bridges,  N.  J. 

Three  Bridges  . 

11.27 

8.19 

8.94 

4.09 

4.15 

1.63 

1.23 

18367 

Geo.  F.  Hill  & Co.,  Gladstone,  N.  J 

Gladstone 

11.79 

8.06 

7 9C\ 

A A f\ 

2.90 

18203 

Kasco  Mills.  Waverlv,  N.  Y. 

W^estwnnd 

1 1.77 

0 

o nn 

2.80 
'I  ^ C 

1.73 

18103 

Phelps  & Sibley  Co.,  Cuba.  N.  Y.  . . 

Palisade  Park  . 

10.81 

y-  / D 

10.06 

y.uu 

9.00 

O*/ O 

5.93 

3*  7 o 

3.50 

2.18 

3.29 

3.00 

2.50 

18685 

Est.  H.  L.  Pierson,  Maplewood,  N.  J.... 

Maplewood  .... 

11.23 

9.63 

7.75 

3.63 

3.25 

2.27 

2.00 

180056 

H.  G.  Werner,  Deans.  N.  T 

Deans 

13.94 

7 QQ 

Q “1 1 

1.08 

1.95 

18846 

F.  D.  Wikoff  Co.,  Red  Bank,  N.  J.  . . 

Red  Bank  

11.91 

/.oo 

11.00 

0.0  1 

8.56 

4.19 

7.21 

3.43 

4.40 

1.70 

0.91 

18365 

Vernon  Wortman,  Pottersville.  N.  T 

Pottersville  .... 

11.73 

8.38 

8.00 

5.03 

4.00 

1.95 

3.00 

— 

Average  

11.81 

9.12 

4.76 

2.01 

18  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

CORN  AND  COB  MEAL 


i 

Station  Number  | 

1 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

18416 

Warren  Beaty,  Hackettstown,  N.  J 

Hackettstown  . . 

10.34 

7.25 

7.00 

2.73 

3.00 

7.26 

10.00 

18546 

Plinl-ori  MilN  Glinton,  N.  J 

r'li’ntnn  . . 

11.41 

5.19 

6.00 

3.76 

3.00 

4.97 

5.00 

18429 

Thos.  Craig,  Buttzville,  N.  J 

Buttzville  

10.72 

7.06 

6.00 

1 3.57 

3.00 

5.51 

lO.OO 

18390 

Geo.  W.  Fisher,  Port  Murray,  N.  J 

Port  Murray  . . 

10.40 

7.94 

6.00 

j 3.51 

2.50 

4.76 

6.01 

18471 

W.  F.  Hummer,  Mt.  Pleasant,  N.  J 

Mt.  Pleasant  . . 

12.42 

8.00 

7.55 

1 3.70 

2.80 

5.55 

3.9i 

18440 

\V\  I,  Jacoby,  Finesville,  N.  J 

Finesville  

14.93 

7.44 

7.83 

j 3.38 

1 2.94 

4.63 

4.9-1 

18515 

G.  G.  MacPherson,  Lebanon,  N.  J 

Lebanon  

11.61 

8.00 

8.00 

1 3.82 

3.26 

3.96 

4.8f: 

18378 

Neighbor  & Son,  Califon,  N.  J 

Califon  

12.55 

7.06 

7.00 

1 3.26 

3.00 

7.38 

7.00 

18435 

J.  L.  Riegel  & Son,  Riegelsville,  N.  J 

Riegelsville  . . . . 

11.54 

8.44 

6.31 

i 3.63 

2.29 

4.43 

7.3.S 

18404 

Wilbert  Stires,  Bridgeville,  N.  J 

Bridgeville  . . . . 

12.26 

7.13 

6.00 

3.19 

2.00 

7.16 

12.0< 

18388 

J.  A.  Tiger,  Califon,  N.  T 

Califon  

11.98 

7.88 

6.00 

3.66 

2.00 

4.72 

12.00 

18401 

E.  J.  V'usler,  Hope,  N.  T 

1 Hope  

11.09 

8.19 

7.00 

3.84 

3.50 

3.44 

7.00 

18419 

J.  S.  Wiseburn  & Son,  Stephensburg,  X.  J. 

Stephensburg  . . 

12.89 

7.63 

7.00 

3.31 

3.00 

5.23 

10.01, 

18366 

W'ortman,  Pottersville,  X’.  J 

■ Pottersville  .... 

11.22 

7.38 

5.50 

3.83 

2.20 

5.19 

6.5(J 

Average  

11.81 

7.40 

3.51 

5.30 

CORN  AND  OATS 


180008 

S.  Anderson,  Hammonton,  X".  J 

Hammonton  . . . 

11.77 

10.00 

9.00 

4.73 

4.00 

3.73' 

5.0(1 

18463 

Bodine  & Co.,  Pittstown,  N.  J 

Pittstown  

10.52 

9.25 

9.50 

5.891  4.00 

3.66 

2.50 

18784 

Commercial  Mill  & Elevator,  Plainfield,  N.  J. 

Plainfield  

10.50 

10.25 

10.50 

4.41 

3.00 

2.29 

4.00 

18466 

E.  H.  Deats,  Pittstown,  N.  J 

Pittstown  

11.64 

9.06 

9.00 

4.47 

4.00 

3.07 

3.50 

18654 

N.  Drake,  Newark,  N.  J 

Newark  

10.55 

10.50 

10.00 

4.63 

4.00 

2.84 

4.00 

18500 

Alvin  Hill  & Son,  Flemington,  N.  J. 

Flemington  .... 

10.76 

11.31 

9.00 

3.91 

3.50 

5.09 

7.00 

18512 

B.  Huffman,  Ringoes,  N.  T 

Ringoes  

11.15 

8.69 

8.00 

4.57 

3.50 

1.99 

4.00 

18468 

W.  F.  Hummer,  Mt.  Pleasant,  X^.  J 

Mt.  Pleasant  . . 

11.99 

9.69 

8.40 

4.01 

3.20 

3.86 

3.80 

18963 

R.  S.  Tobnson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J 

Bridgeton  

10.65 

9.81 

10.13 

5.34 

4.44 

4.59 

2.58 

18480 

Lambert  & Kerr,  Lambertville,  N.  J...' 

Lambertville  ... 

11.55 

9.06 

10.00 

4.37 

4.00 

2.57 

7.00 

18838 

V.  T.  Miller,  Manasquan,  N.  J 

Manasquan  . . .. 

12.18 

11.25 

9.00 

3.91 

3.00 

2.29 

4.00 

18236 

Geo.  Q.  Moon  & Co.,  Binghamton,  N.  Y.  . . . 

Morristown  .... 

11.34 

10.25 

8.50 

4.29 

4.50 

4.95 

9.00 

18205 

Oradell  Flour,  Feed  & Grain  Co.,  Oradell, 

N.  J 

Oradell  

11.35 

10.25 

9.75 

3.81 

3.41 

3.21 

4.23 

18686 

Est.  of  H.  L.  Pierson,  Maplewood,  X’^.  J.  ..  . 

Maplewood  .... 

10.99 

10.56 

8.00 

4.58 

3.00 

3.68 

4.75 

18497 

A.  S.  Rockafellow,  Flemington,  N.  J 

Flemington  .... 

11.37 

10.06 

9.00 

4.06 

4.00 

2.85 

4.50 

180059 

W.  Schlesinger,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J 

X^ew  Brunswick 

11.54 

9.44 

9.70 

3.42 

3.60 

2.13 

2.3.S 

18844 

Stonaker  & Casey,  Jamesburg,  N.  J 

Jamesburg  .... 

10.94 

11.81 

9.00 

4.45 

3.50 

4.55 

2.00 

18045 

Taylor  Bros.,  Camden,  X^.  J 

Camden  

11.22 

9.81 

9.00 

5.12 

4.00 

3.51 

5.00 

18745 

Union  Grain  Co.,  Plainfield,  X”^.  T 

Plainfield 

10.72 

1 1.00 

10.06 

4.46 

4.64 

3.00 

2.90 

18847 

F.  D.  Wikoff  Co.,  Red  Bank,  N.  J 

Red  Bank  

11.41 

10.75 

9.00 

4.23 

3.50 

4.43 

8.50 

18836 

M.  G.  & A.  P.  Wyckoff  Co.,  Manasquan, 

N.  J 

Manasquan  .... 

10.13 

10.00 

5.29 

4.50 

4.67 

5.50 

18755 

W.  H.  H.  Wyckoff  Co.,  Somerville,  N.  J... 

Somerville  

13.35 

11.19| 

8.56| 

1 8.00 

3.33 

3.00 

'3.43 

7.50 

Average  

11.25 

10.57 

4.42 

3.47 

Bulletin  327  19 


RYE  BRAN 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

F'at 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

3950 

F.  R.  Boyd,  Medford,  N.  J 

Medford  

11.77 

14.65 

12.00 

2.29 

2.50 

4.38 

5.00 

3465 

E.  H.  Deals,  Pittstown,  N.  J 

Pittstown  

11.30 

15.31 

13.00 

2.44 

2.50 

4.88 

6.00 

3900 

Garden  City  M’l’g  Co.,  Bordentown,  N.  J.. 

Bordentown  . . . 

10.61 

16.44 

13.50 

2.78 

2.55 

3.78 

4.30 

3633 

J.  P.  Golden  & Son,  Yardville,  N.  J 

Yardville  

11.65 

17.31 

13.00 

2.93 

2.60 

4.59 

7.00 

5811 

Gross  Bros.,  Hightstown,  N.  J 

Freehold  

11.78 

14.00 

13.36 

2.55 

2.62 

5.18 

4.36 

5605 

Howell  & Sons,  Trenton,  N.  T 

Lawrence  

11.45 

16.81 

13.75 

2.65 

2.25 

5.28 

4.50 

5866 

Hutchinson  Bros.,  Crosswicks,  X.  J 

Crosswicks  .... 

12.48 

16.06 

14.94 

2.92 

3.03 

5.20 

4.38 

5857 

Geo.  H.  Kirby,  Allentown,  N.  J 

Allentown  

13.25 

15.38 

13.00 

2.80 

3.19 

4.49 

3.93 

5889 

W'm.  Kirbv,  Ktra,  N.  T 

F.tra 

12.60 

15.25 

12.50 

2.17 

1.82 

3.10 

5.00 

5944 

Kirby  Bros,  Medford,  X.  J 

Medford  

11.67 

15.44 

13.75 

2.31 

2.25 

4.29 

4.50 

5942 

Ridgeway  Bros.,  Pemberton,  N.  J 

Pemberton  .... 

12.99 

13.69 

12.31 

2.24 

3.64 

3.20 

4.60 

5775 

Union  Mills  Co.,  Neshanic,  N.  J 

Neshanic  

12.04 

15.63 

13.00 

2.40 

2.00 

4.66 

7.00 

)054 

H.  G.  Werner,  Deans,  N.  J 

Dea  ns  

12.58 

15.25 

12.38 

2.24 

2.29 

3.97 

2.72 

5460 

D.  R.  Worman,  Frenchtown,  N.  J 

Frenchtown  . . . 

11.29 

16.13 

13.50| 

1 

2.67 

2.50 

5.27 

5.25 

Average  

11.96 

15.53 

1 

. 1 

2.53 

4.45 

1 

^888 

.948 

..80'8 

464 

412 

901 

S'^632 

e839 

('603 

865 

856 

890 

943 

331 

c941 

776 

(938 

912 

055 

,,461 


RYE  MIDDLINGS 


A.  K.  Ashby,  Burlington,  X.  J 

1 Burlington  .... 

12.43 

14.94 

F'.  R.  Boyd,  Medford,  N.  J 

1 Medford  

12.60 

11.63 

11.00 

Burtis,  Conine  & Son,  Allentown,  N.  J.... 

i Freehold  

13.27 

13.88 

10.50 

E.  H.  Deats,  Pittstown,  N.  J 

Pittstown  

12.74 

13.94 

12.31 

Flory  Milling  Co.,  Bangor,  Pa 

Stephensburg  . . 

10.18 

14.81 

13.00 

Garden  City  M’l’g  Co.,  Bordentown,  N.  J.  . 

Bordentown  . . . 

10.99 

14.88 

10.50 

J.  P.  Golden  & Son,  Yardville,  N.  J 

Yardville  

12.62 

13.44 

11.00 

Gross  Bros.,  Hightstown,  N.  T 

Manasquan  .... 

11.73 

16.06 

9.66 

Howell  & Sons,  Trenton,  N.  J 

Lawrence  

11.70 

15.44 

12.50 

Hutchinson  Bros.,  Crosswicks,  N.  J 

Crosswicks  .... 

12.65 

14.81 

10.63 

Geo.  H.  Kirby,  Allentown,  N.  T 

Allentown  

12.85 

12.94 

11.69 

Wm.  Kirby,  Etra,  N.  J 

Etra  

12.72 

15.44 

10.38 

Kirby  Bros.,  Medford,  N.  J 

Medford  

12.11 

12.13 

10.00 

Miner-Hillard  M’l’g  Co.,  Wilkesbarre,  ^a.. 

Hamburg  

11.21 

16.19 

12.00 

Ridgeway  Bros.,  Pemberton,  N.  J 

Pemberton  .... 

13.32 

11.38 

8.75 

Union  Mills  Co.,  Neshanic,  N.  J 

Neshanic.  

12.85 

14.13 

12.00 

\\’oodward  Bros.,  Cookstown,  N.  J 

Cookstown  .... 

13.23 

11.19 

10.00 

S.  C.  Woolman  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 

Mt.  Flolly 

8.51 

16.03 

16.00 

FI.  G.  Werner,  Deans,  N.  J 

Deans  

14.25 

12.50 

11.63 

D.  R.  Worman,  Frenchtown,  N.  J 

Frenchtown  . . . 

12.74 

15.00 

8.31 

Average  

12.24 

14.04 

2.53 

3.10 

2.26 

2.25 

2.37 

2.50 

2.42 

3.00 

3.32 

4.00 

2.37 

2.50 

2.52 

3.77 

2.94 

3.00 

3.74 

9.00 

2.74 

2.20 

3.04 

2.15 

2.24 

2.25 

2.37 

3.00 

2.83 

1.82 

4.28 

1.32 

2.78 

2.20 

4.39 

2.75 

2.94 

2.30 

3.04 

2.03 

2.68 

3.07 

4.04 

2.75 

3.11 

1.75 

3.49 

3.00 

2.11 

2.00 

2.95 

2.50 

3.13 

2.50 

3.78 

5.00 

1.88 

2.11 

1.69 

1.41 

2.93 

2.00 

2.87 

4.00 

1.72 

2.00 

1.79 

2.50 

3.49 

3.40 

5.65 

8.00 

2.18 

2.14 

2.27 

2.82 

2.64 

2.25 

2.62 

3.00 

2.60 

3.17 

20  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

WHEAT  BRAN 


u 

Protein 

Fat  I 

Fiber 

5 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

Place  of 

a; 

"d 

<u 

<U 

(U 

6 

dj 

c 

AND  Dealer 

Sampling 

u 

C 

C 

"O 

d 

'rt 

‘o 

o 

3 1 

u 

cc 

d 

o 

c 

o 

fa 

u 

c 

M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

18315 

180014 

Halsey  

9.86 

15.25 

15.50| 

15.00j 

1 

4.65 

4.50 

8.10 

12.00 

Mullica  Hill  . . . 

10.61j 

[13.96 

3.69 

4.00 

10.35 

10.00 

Bay  State  Milling  Co.,  Winona,  Minn. 

18332 

Hamhnrg  

Q.1  7 1 =;.81 

15.00i 

1 

5.59 

4.50 

9.83 

12.00 

Belvidere  Flouring  Mills  Co.,  Belvidere,  N.  J. 

1 

18398 

Belvidere  

lO.Slj 

17.00 

8.00 

4.24 

2.00 

7.99 

15.00 

Big  Diamond  Mills  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

180043 

South  River  ... 

10.28 

13.63 

14.0o| 

1 

4.78 

4.00 

12.25 

11.00 

Blaisdell  Milling  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18931 

Moorestown  . . . 

10.88 

14.44 

13.00] 

: 5.45 

4.00 

10.94 

13.00 

Burtis,  Conine  & Son,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

18854 

Allentown  

12.03 

14.13 

12.00 

3.31 

4.00 

9.73 

7.00 

L.  G.  Campbell  M’l’g  Co.,  Owatonna,  Minn. 

18803 

Elizabeth  

9.83 

14.13 

13.40 

5.31 

4.50 

10.02 

12.20 

Clinton  Mills,  Clinton,  N.  J. 

18548 

W^heat  Bran  

Clinton  

9.81 

17.19 

13.00 

3.95 

4.00 

7.76 

8.25 

Commander  Mill  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

180001 

Bran  

Camden  

10.41 

14.44 

14.00 

5.23 

4.00 

10.75 

11.00 

J.  G.  Davis  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

18357 

Granite  Wheat  Bran  

Murray  Hill  ... 

9.30 

16.00 

13.00 

5.41 

3.00 

10.05 

12.00 

J.  Sanford  Davis,  Greenwich,  N.  J. 

18969 

Soft  W^inter  W^heat  Bran  

Greenwich  

11.20 

14.25 

14.00 

4.47 

4.50 

7.99 

7.50 

L.  W.  Dorland,  High  Bridge,  N.  J. 

18543 

Wheat  Bran  

High  Bridge  . . 

11.97 

16.25 

14.19 

2.94 

' 4.10 

6.73 

6.51 

Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.,  Duluth,  Minn. 

18488 

^Duluth  Imperial  Bran  

Lambertville  ... 

9.64 

15.13 

14.50 

5.71 

3.75 

12.25 

11.90 

B.  A.  Eckhart  Milling  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

18297 

iWheat  Bran  

Branchville  .... 

7.44 

15.19 

14.00 

4.79 

4.00 

9.34 

11.00 

Ewen  Milling  Co.,  Alloway,  N.  J. 

18981 

Wheat  Bran  

Alloway  

11.70 

14.75 

15.25 

3.42 

4.25 

8.61 

7.50 

Flemington  Milling  Co.,  Flemington,  N.  J. 

18506 

Wheat  Bran  

Flemington  .... 

10.06 

15.13 

12.50 

3.12 

3.74 

7.76 

9.26 

Flory  Milling  Co.,  Bangor,  Pa. 

18408 

Pure  Wheat  Bran  

Hope  

9.44 

14.81 

12.00 

5.09 

3.00 

10.28 

12.00 

G.  F.  Geisinger,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

18972 

Wheat  Bran  

Bridgeton  

11.05 

13.94 

14.44 

3.63 

4.23 

8.87 

7.25 

J.  H.  Grover  & Son,  Princeton  Jet.,  N.  J. 

18582 

Wheat  Bran  

Princeton  Jet.  . 

10.91 

15.63 

13.50 

4.83 

3.50 

9.60 

12.00 

1 

Hecker-Jones-Jewell  M’l’g  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

18665 

tPhnire  Bran  ... 

Newark  

9.71 

15.50 

14.25 

4.75 

4.00 

0 S7ii  1 on 

G.  C.  Higgins  & Son,  Three  Bridges,  N.  J. 

1 

18493 

Wheat  Bran  

Three  Bridges  . 

8.92 

14.69 

14.00 

3.03 

4.00 

1 

7.99 

1 3.00 

1 

Howell  & Sons,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18604 

Wheat  Bran  

Lawrence  

10.98 

16.13 

14.00 

3.35 

1 4.00 
1 

7.61 

12.00 

1 

Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling  Co., 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

1 

1 

18860 

tDreadnnncrht  Wheat  Bran  . . 

Red  Bank  

9.07 

14.19 

15.50 

3.67 

j 4.00 

7.«7li  i.nn 

^With  ground  screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run. 


Bulletin  327 

WHEAT  BRAN — (Continued) 


21 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

K C.  Hutchinson  MTg  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J 

18591 

11. OS 

) 17.1S 

) 14.0( 

) 3.9( 

5 4.0( 

3 7.3S 

o 

o 

W.  J.  Jennison  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18779 

iWheat  Bran  

Neshanic  Sta.  . 

9.66 

; 14.44 

■ 14.0C 

) 4.38 

5 4.0( 

) 10.8! 

i 12.0( 

R.  S.  Johnson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

18964 

11.63 

1 14.06 

. 13.56 

5 3.7! 

i 4.36 

) 10.28 

! 8.93 

Johnson  Bros.,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

18966 

Wheat  Bran  

Bridgeton  

12.22 

13.69 

' 13.38 

1 3.33 

i 3.9! 

1 8.46 

1 9.91 

M.  B.  Jones  & Co.,  New  York  City. 

18197 

8.43 

14.94 

14.0C 

1 4.24 

• 3.0C 

1 10.84 

7.0C 

Kemper  Mill  & Elevator  Co.,  Kansas  City, 

Mo. 

18249 

8.54 

17.38 

14.50 

1 4.01 

4.00 

1 8.48 

10.00 

Geo.  H.  Kirby,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

18859 

11.87 

13.88 

13.13 

3.53 

4.53 

7.40 

1 6.71 

Kirby  Bros.,  Medford,  N.  J. 

18945 

Wheat  Bran  

Medford  

11.73 

14.69 

13.00 

3.51 

4.00 

7.96 

9.00 

H.  W.  Koch  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18962 

Robin  Hood  Wheat  Bran  

Bridgeton  

9.66 

16.44 

14.30 

5.33 

4.20 

11.15 

12.00 

Listman  Mill  Co.,  LaCrosse,  Wis. 

180020 

Elmco  Wheat  Bran  

Vineland  

10.91 

15.81 

14.90 

5.15 

3.80 

9.11 

12.00 

Martenis  Bros.,  New  York  City. 

18551 

^M.  Bros.  Wheat  Bran  

Pennington  

10.83 

14.56 

13.00 

4.82 

3.50 

11.13 

12.00 

Mauser  Mill  Co.,  Treichlers,  Pa. 

18451 

^Pure  Wheat  Bran  

Frenchtown  ... 

9.35 

15.44 

14.00 

4.09 

5.00 

7.51 

9.00 

McMurtrie  Milling  Co.,  Belvidere,  N.  J. 

1 

18393 

Wheat  Bran  

Belvidere  I 

9.93 

15.63 

10.00 

3.96 

2.00 

8.05 

10.00 

Millbourne  Mills,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18820 

Pure  Wheat  Bran  

Jamesburg  .... 

9.57 

15.631 

15.00 

4.03 

4.00 

9.16 

10.00 

Millville  Flour  & Grain  Co.,  Millville,  N.  J. 

180031 

Wheat  Bran  

Millville  

11.55 

11.94 

11.00 

4.18 

3.50 

1 

8.80 

8.00 

Geo.  B.  Mitchell,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

18007| 

Wheat  Bran  

Swedesboro 

11.48 

13.88 

4.13 

10.52 

Northwestern  Consolidated  Milling  Co., 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18100 

Pure  Wheat  Bran  

Palisades  Park. 

9.98 

14.56 

14.50 

5.38 

4.00 

10.58 

11.00 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Co.,  Minneapolis, 

Minn. 

18239 

^Pillsbury  Wheat  Bran  

Morristown  ....  : 

10.81 

13.95 

13.00 

4.64 

4.00 

10.52 

13.00 

18688 

^Pillsbury  Durum  Wheat  Bran  

Caldwell  

8.36 

14.13  : 

11.00 

6.44 

4.00 

13.34  : 

14.00 

( 

Quaker  City  Flour  Mills  Co.,  Phila.,  Pa. 

18043 

^Winter  Wheat  Bran  

Camden  

8.60 

13.88  : 

13.00 

4.36 

3.00 

9.69  : 

10.50 

] 

Red  Wing  Milling  Co.,  Red  Wing,  Minn. 

18322 

^Bixota  Wheat  Bran  

Sussex  

8.74  : 

13.19  : 

13.90 

5.44 

3.60  : 

11.99  ] 

L3.60 

W.  H.  Reger  & Son,  White  House,  N.  J. 

18525 

Wheat  Bran  

White  House...] 

10.18  ] 

16.69  ] 

13.50 

3.59 

3.18 

7.27 

7.05 

r.  L.  Riegel  & Son,  Riegelsville,  N.  J. 

1 

18438  ' 

Wheat  Bran  

Riegelsville  ....| 

9.00|] 

:4.94  ] 

!2.19 

3.74| 

2.81 

9.58 

9.30 

^VVith  ground  screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run. 


r 


22  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


WHEAT  BRAN — ( Continued ) 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

1 

Guaranteed 

j Found 

s 

<b 

ct 

u 

2 

A.  S.  Rockafellow,  Flemington,  N.  J. 

1" 

1 

18496 

Wheat  Bran  

Flemington  .... 

11.59 

16.25 

14.00 

3.77 

4.00 

7.48 

1 8.0< 

Rosekrans-Snyder  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

18649 

Newark  

10.05 

14.50 

12.00 

3.17 

3.00 

8.33 

|12.0( 

Russell-Miller  Milling  Co.,  Minneapolis, 

1 

1 

Minn. 

1 

1821S 

Wheat  Bran  

Little  Falls  .... 

8.26 

15.31 

13.00 

4.60 

4.00 

10.48 

|11.0f 

B.  F.  Schwartz  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18070 

iWheat  Bran  

Hackensack  . . . 

10.15 

13.25 

13.00 

4.85 

4.00 

11.60 

15.0( 

J.  Smith  & Co.,  Stockton,  N.  J. 

18473 

Stockton  

9.13 

16.25 

|14.00 

3.13 

4.00 

9.25 

9.0f 

T.  C.  Souder  & Son,  Millville,  N.  J. 

180026 

Millville  

8.80 

15.44 

14.00 

4.17 

3.50 

9.53 

12.0( 

Star  & Crescent  Milling  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

18133 

‘Star  Bran  

Paterson  

8.96 

14.50 

15.00 

4.33 

4.00 

10.59 

lO.Oi 

18880 

‘Crescent  \Vinter  W^^heat  Bran  

Columbus  

9.19 

14.44 

15.00 

3.41 

4.00 

9.51 

10.  Of 

W.  W.  Supplee,  Hampton,  N.  J. 

18420 

Wheat  Bran  

Hampton  

10.37 

17.19 

14.00 

3.05 

4.00 

8.11 

8.0C 

W.  & W‘.  E.  Thomas,  Milford,  N.  J. 

18447 

Wlier^it  T^ran  

Milford  

9. 04 

15.31 

13.50 

3.62 

4.10 

8.32 

7.5( 

A.  Thompson  & Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18580 

\\nieat  Bran  

Trenton  

11.22 

20.44 

14.50 

5.03 

4.50 

6.41 

8.5C 

J.  A.  Tiger,  Califon,  N.  J. 

1 

1 

18387 

Wheat  Bran  

Califon  

10.61 

14.94 

12.00 

3.36 

3.00 

8.22 

8.00 

Union  Mills  Co.,  Neshanic,  N.  J. 

18777 

Wheat  Bran  

Neshanic  

10.90 

14.75 

13.75 

3.08 

4.00 

9.52 

11.00 

Geo.  Urban  Milling  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

18232 

‘W‘heat  Bran  

Morristown  .... 

9.16 

15.38 

14.00 

5.43 

3.50 

10.33 

12.50 

W^’ashburn-Crosby  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18089 

‘Wheat  Bran  

Englewood  .... 

9.40 

14.06 

13.00 

4.59| 

1 4.00 

10.45 

13.00 

W''estern  Star  Mill  Co.,  Salina,  Kan. 

18263 

Star  Winter  Wheat  Bran  with  Screen- 

1 

Netcnng 

7.35 

18.56j 

15.00 

4.14 

3.50 

8.41 

ll.OOi 

F.  C.  W'^illiams,  Easton,  Pa. 

18252 

W‘heat  Bran  

Andover  

8.99 

16.00 

14.00 

4.96 

4.30 

7.94 

10.00 

S.  C.  Woolman  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18845 

Spring  Wheat  Bran  

Red  Bank  

10.10 

14.44 

14.50 

4.66 

4.00 

11.64| 

11.00 

18974 

‘Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Bran  

Bridgeton  

8.74 

15.13 

13.30 

5.21 

3.00 

11.121 

11.25 

W.  H.  H.  Wyckoff  Co.,  Somerville,  N.  J. 

1 

1 

18754 

Wheat  Bran  

Somerville  

11.09 

14.38 

11.00 

3.60 

3.00 

9.17| 

10.00 

S.  11.  Young  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

18823 

‘Wheat  Bran  

Spotswood  .... 

9.14|14.38 

14.00 

5.44 

4.00 

11.27| 

1 

11.00 

Average  

1 

10.01| 

15.11 

1 

4.29 

1 

9.421 

1 

1 

^ 1 

‘With  ground  screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run. 


Bulletin  327 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS 


23 


Station  Xumher  ^ 

1 

1 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

3 

iri 

'o 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

c 

o 

Guaranteed 

-d 

C 

o 

Guaranteed 

c 

o 

Guaranteed 

M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadel])hia,  Pa. 

i 

18004 

Rex  White  Middlings  

Plainsboro  . . . . 

10.89 

15.69 

16.00 

1 4.97 

5.50 

6.36 

10.00 

180002 

12.37 

16.25 

4.98 

4.26 

Bay  State  Milling  Co.,  Winona,  INIinn. 

18333 

Winona  Fancy  White  Flour  Middlings. 

Hamburg  

10.28 

15.88 

16.00 

3.91 

4.50 

1.43 

2.50 

Belvidere  Flouring  Mill  Co.,  Belvidere,  N.  J. 

18399 

11.18 

16.31 

8.00 

4.16 

2.00 

4.41 

10.00 

1 

Big  Diamond  Mills  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18148 

10.13 

17.00 

14.50 

5.47 

4.50 

5.25 

1 7.76 

Buffalo  Cereal  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

18118 

Wheat  Flour  Middlings  

Rutherford  .... 

10.79 

16.19 

16.00 

4.67 

4.50 

5.38 

8.00 

Burtis,  Conine  & Son,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

1 

18853 

Wheat  Middlings  

Allentown  

12.51 

15.69 

13.00 

3.96 

4.00 

5.38| 

2.00 

Bushkill  Milling  Co.,  Easton,  Pa. 

1 

18446 

Pure  Middlings  

Phillipsburg  . . . 

11.06 

16.25 

3.50 

4.06| 

1 

Clinton  Mills,  Clinton,  N.  J. 

18545 

Wheat  Middlings  

Clinton  ... 

10.74 

15.69 

12.00 

3.55 

3.50 

j 

1 

3.00 

Commander  Mill  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

2.62j 
1 1 

18196 

^Commander  Standard  Middlings  

Boontnn  . . 

10.73 

16.56 

15.00 

5.66 

4.00 

1 1 
7.23 

Q OP 

18343 

^Wheat  Flour  Middlings  

Bernardsville  .. 

9.83 

18.06 

16.00 

5.97 

4.50 

5.61 

y»  uo 

7.00 

J.  G.  Davis  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

18358 

Granite  Wheat  Middlings  

Murray  Hill  . . 

10.18 

17.14 

15.00 

5.66 

4.50 

4.87 

10.00 

J.  Sanford  Davis,  Greenwich,  N.  J.  * 

18970 

Fancy  White  Middlings  

Greenwich  .... 

12.71 

15.06 

10.00 

4.74 

1.00 

2.38 

1.00 

18971 

Brown  Wheat  Middlings  

Greenwich  .... 

12.27 

15.00 

14.00 

5.27 

4.50 

3.40 

2.30 

Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.,  Duluth,  Minn. 

18749 

“S”  Middlings  

Somerville 

10.57 

17.00 

16.50 

5.56 

4.70 

6.49 

j 

8.10 

J.  W.  Eshelman,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

18827 

^Wheat  Middlings  

Long  Branch  . . 

12.14 

14.81 

15.00 

3.40 

5.00 

3.36| 

9.00 

Everett,  Aughenbaugh  & Co.,  Waseca,  Minn. 

1 

18848 

^Eaco  Wheat  Middlings  

Red  Rank 

10.94 

17.88 

15.00 

5.86 

3.00 

/C  C C 1 1 n AA 

Ewen  Milling  Co.,  Alloway,  N.  J. 

I 

1 u.uu 

18982 

Wheat  Middlings  

Alloway 

12.44 

16.81  [ 

14.00 

4.83 

3.18 

4.72| 

I 

2.42 

A.  J.  Faulkner,  New  York  City. 

18578 

Standard  Wheat  Middlings  

Trenton 

9.65 

16.56 

15.44 

3.73 

4.24 

1 

I 

in 

Flemington  Milling  Co.,  Flemington,  N.  J. 

i U.  Do 

j 

1 1 .UU 

18504 

Wheat  Middlings  

Flemington  .... 

10.53 

16.50 

13.50 

4.27 

3.51 

4.72 

4.26 

Flory  Milling  Co.,  Bangor,  Pa. 

18409 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  

Hope  

10.35 

16.13 

13.00| 

4.741 

3.00 

3.84| 

9.00 

T.  D.  Fritch  & Sons,  Bethlehem,  Pa. 

1 

1 

18380 

VVdieat  White  Middlings  

Cal  if  on 

9.86 

16.44 

13.00 

1 

4 1 Al 

3.00 

1 

5.46| 

1 

9.00 

G.  F.  Geisinger,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

*T.  1 0 

18976 

Wheat  Middlings  

Bridgeton 

12.34 

16.00 

15.69 

5.36 

4.72 

3.55| 

Globe  Elevator  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

2.58 

18107 

Fancy  White  Middlings  

Fort  T.ee 

9.76 

15.13 

13.00 

4.26 

7 nn 

1 

5.72| 

18269 

Flour  Middlines  

Dnvpr 

9.05 

15.69 

12.00 

4.28 

o.  UU 

3.00 

5.00 

J.  11.  Grover  & Son^  Princeton  Jet.,  X.  J. 

5.33| 

1 

9.00 

18581 

Wheat  Middlines  

Princeton  Jet...  : 

10.50  : 

17.25 

14.50 

5.91 

4.50 

1 

4.691 

7.00 

24  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS — ( Continued ) 


1 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

E 

T3 

*0 

'C 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

Place  of 

0) 

<L> 

(U 

<ij 

V 

c 

o 

AND  Dealer 

Sampling 

*0 

C 

£ 

"c 

c 

nj 

T3 

c 

2 

rt 

'o 

3 

O 

o 

§ 

P 

O 

CS 

tn 

o 

Lh 

o 

b 

6 

HeAer,  Jones-Jewell  Milling  Co.,  Buffalo, 

/ 

N.  Y. 

18124 

Paterson  

9.31 

17.13 

16.00 

6.15 

4.75 

7.89 

9.25 

Hecker- Jones- Jewell  Milling  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

18738 

Fancy  Flour  Middlings  

Jersey  City  

Jersey  City  .... 

9.84 

17.63 

15.75 

4.89 

4.75 

4.83 

5.50 

18739 

^ “H”  Middlings  

10.,45 

16.81 

15.50 

5.03 

4.75 

7.73 

8.00 

G.  C.  Higgins  & Son,  Three  Bridges,  N.  J. 

18492 

Wheat  Middlings  

Three  Bridges  . 

9.97 

16.69 

14.05 

4.93 

3.00 

3.46 

6.00 

Howell  & Sons,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18602 

Wheat  Middlings  

Lawrence  

11.40 

17.06 

15.00 

4.11 

4.00 

5.95 

9.50 

E.  C.  Hutchinson  Milling  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18590 

Wheat  Middlings  

Trenton  

12.89 

15.19 

15.00 

2.96 

3.00 

7.07 

4.00 

W.  J.  Jennison  Co.,*  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18772 

^Wheat  Flour  Middlings  

Bound  Brook  .. 

11.28 

17.19 

17.00 

5.52 

4.50 

5.62 

5.50 

S.  Johnson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

18965 

Wheat  Middlings  

Bridgeton  

13.31 

15.69 

16.44 

4.65 

5.43 

5.25 

3.09 

Johnson  Bros.,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

18968 

Wheat  Middlings  

Bridgeton  

12.69 

14.94 

15.63 

4.03 

5.72 

2.79 

4.60 

G.  H.  Kirby,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

18858 

Wheat  Middlings  

Allentown  

12.42 

15.06 

13.00 

3.56 

3.70 

2.09 

2.03 

H.  W.  Koch  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18773 

^Wheat  Middlings  

Bound  Brook  .. 

9.17 

14.94 

16.00 

5.42 

5.50 

10.42 

10.00 

McMurtrie  Milling  Co.,  Belvidere,  N.  J. 

18392 

Wheat  Middlings  

Belvidere  

9.32 

16.50 

8.00 

4.52 

1.05 

5.78 

2.00 

Millbourne  Mills,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18819 

^Wheat  Middlings  

Tamesburg  

10.23 

14.25 

16.00 

3.94 

4.00 

3.85 

4.00 

Millville  Flour  & Grain  Co.,  Millville,  N.  J. 

180030 

Wheat  Middlings  

Millville  

12.70 

15.06 

13.50 

5.24 

4.50 

3.43 

3.00 

Geo.  B.  Mitchell,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

18006| 

Wheat  Middlings  

Swedesboro  . . . 

12.18 

15.88 

5.45 

6.62 

Northwestern  Consolidated  Milling  Co., 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18006 

Wheat  Middlings  

Freehold  

10.17 

17.50 

15.50 

6.59 

4.50 

6.56 

6.00 

Northwestern  Eleva’r  & Mill  Co.,  Toledo,  O. 

18139 

’Wheat  Middlings 

Paterson  

10.22 

15.25 

15.00 

3.89 

4.00 

5.55 

9.00 

Phelps  & Sibley  Co.,  Cuba,  N.  Y. 

18101 

’Fancy  Wheat  Middlings  . . . 

Homestead  .... 

8.91 

17.06 

15.00 

5.40 

4.00 

6.13 

6.00 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Co.,  Minneapolis, 

Minn. 

18310 

’Pillsbury  Wheat  A Middlings  . . . 

Sussex  

8.93 

18.00 

15.75 

15.00 

14.00 

5.10 

5.41 

4.00 

4.00 

5.62 

9.77 

8.00 

11.00 

18317 

’Pillsbury  Wheat  Standard  Middlings.. 
Quaker  City  Flour  Mills  Co.,  Phila.,  Pa. 

Sussex  

8.47 

18051 

Winter  Wheat  Middlings  

Camden  

10.33 

16.63 

14.00 

4.74 

4.00 

5.34 

5.50 

Red  Wing  Milling  Co.,  Red  Wing,  Minn. 

18323 

Bixota  Wheat  Flour  Middlings  i 

Sussex  

9.94 

17.13 

16.20 

4.82 

4.50 

3.48 

4.00 

W.  H.  Reger  & Son,  White  House,  \.  J. 

18524| 

Wheat  Middlings  I 

White  House  . . 

10.53 

15.63 

13.38| 

3.44 

3.04 

1.931 

1.80 

HVith  ground  screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run. 


Bulletin  327 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS — (Continued) 


25 


Manufacturer  or  Jobber 
AND  Dealer 


jj.  T-.  Riegel  vS:  Son,  Riegelsville,  X.  J. 

18436j  W'heat  Middlings  

]8437|  Ship  Stuff  

|A.  S.  Rockafellow,  Flemington,  X’^.  J. 


18495 


18650 


18651 


18750 


18710 


18481 


18028 


18476 


180027 


18134 


18422 


18448 


18579 


18335 


18778 


18262 


18253 


18824 


Wheat  Middlings  

Rosekrans-Snyder  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Russell-Miller  Milling  Co.,  Minneapolis, 
Minn. 

Standard  Middlings  

S.  F.  Scattergood  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Wheat  Middlings  

B.  F.  Schwartz  & Co.,  Inc.,  New  York  City. 

^Wheat  Middlings  

Shane  Bros  & Wilson  Co.,  Minneapolis, 
Minn. 

^Snowball  Wheat  White  Middlings... 
Sharpless  & Bro.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

S & B White  Middlings 

J.  Smith  & Co.,  Stockton,  X^.  J. 

Wheat  Middlings  

r.  C.  Souder  & Son,  Millville,  X^.  J. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Star  & Crescent  Milling  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Crescent  White  Wheat  Middlings  . . . 
W.  W.  Supplee,  Hampton,  N.  J. 

Wheat  Middlings  

W.  & W.  E.  Thomas,  Milford,  N.  J. 

Wheat  Middlings  

A.  Thompson  & Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Tioga  Mill  & Elevator  Co.,  Waverly,  X^.  Y. 

Waverly  Flour  Wheat  Middlings 

Union  Mills  Co.,  Neshanic,  N.  J. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Western  Star  Mill  Co.,  Salina,  Kan. 

Star  Winter  Wheat  Middlings  

F.  C.  Williams,  Easton,  Pa. 

Wheat  Middlings  

S.  H.  Young  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

^Wheat  Flour  Middlings  


Average 


^With  ground  screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run. 


Place  of 
Sampling 

V 

u, 

a 

'o 

Protein 

1 Fat 

FfBER 

Found 

, Guaranteed 

! 

1 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Riegelsville  .... 

[il.38 

14.56 

; 13.44 

4.07 

' 3.15 

j 

i|  2.36 

1 

1 

>1  3.89 

Riegelsville  .... 

1 9.88 

1 

|15.63 

13.69 

3.89 

1 3.59 

7.35 

6.10 

Flemington  .... 

1 

|12.01 

1 

18.88 

i 

10.00 

5.56 

4.00 

3.48 

5.00 

Newark  

1 

|10.14| 

|16.03 

14.00 

4.24 

3.00 

5.63 

10.00 

Newark  

9.94 

17.19 

15.00 

5.89 

4.00 

7.60 

9.00 

Somerville  

10.30 

15.44 

16.20 

4.63 

4.60 

4.92 

5.00 

Newark  

10.00 

16.13 

15.00 

5.35 

5.00 

9.77 

9.50 

Lambertville  . . . 

8.99 

17.50 

15.00 

5.51 

4.50 

6.73 

7.00 

Camden  

10.28 

16.81 

14.00 

4.97 

3.00 

5.22 

8.00 

Stockon  

10.97 

17.25 

13.00 

5.32 

4.00 

2.62 

7.00 

Millville  

10.70 

18.00 

15.00 

4.43 

4.00 

4.55 

9.00 

Paterson  

9.20 

16.25 

16.00 

5.30 

4.50 

4.13 

6.00 

Hampton  

11.42 

17.75 

14.00 

4.76 

4.00 

3.18 

8.00 

Milford  

10.90 

14.50 

12.10 

3.55 

3.00 

2.56 

2.00 

Trenton  

11.77 

16.01 

14.50 

4.10 

3.75 

4.68 

5.00 

Hamburg  

9.59 

16.25 

15.00 

4.98 

4.00 

7.12| 

8.50 

Neshanic  

11.78 

16.00 

14.00 

4.69 

4.00 

5.0o[ 

8.00 

Netcong  

8.96 

16.19 

16.00 

3.97 

1 

4.00 

4.68| 

5.50 

Andover  

10.44 

18.13 

17.00 

5.56 

7.00 

1 

4.01| 

5.00 

Spotswood  .... 

10.23 

17.50 

16.00 

5.84 

4.50 

1 

5.63| 

7.00 

10.69 

16.35 

4.77 

1 

C 1 r 

.. 

J*  1 0 

26 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

WHEAT  FEEDING  FLOUR 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

1 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

1 Found 

Guaranteed 

Northwestern  Consolidated  Milling  Co.,  ! 

j 

1 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

18369 

XXX  Comet  

Far  Hills  

8.68 

17.81 

16.50 

6.27 

4.00 

2.27 

3.00 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Co.,  Minneapolis, 

Minn. 

i 

18142 

Pillsbury  XX  Daisy  

Passaic  

8.68 

18.00 

16.00 

4.90 

4.00 

3.34j 

4.00 

Star  & Crescent  Milling  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

1 

18135 

Star  Red  Dog  

Paterson  

9.80 

15.50 

[16.50 

4.40 

4.00 

4.09 

1 3.00 

C.  W.  Wagar  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

i 

18849 

Red  Dng’  Flour  

Red  Rank  

11.45 

17.00 

16.75 

4.17 

4.25 

2.30 

1 3.00 

1 

J.  D.  Walls  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18071 

Atlas  Red  Dog  

1 Hackensasck  ..  . 

9.51 

18.75 

12.00 

5.59 

4.00 

4.46 

1 5.00 

Washburn-Crosby  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

1 

1 

18121 

Adrian  Red  Dog  Flour  

j Paterson  

10.02 

16.75 

16.00 

1 4.55 

4.00 

3.09 

4.00 

1 

1 

Average  

1 

9.69 

17.30 

1 4.98 

3.26 

ALFALFA  MEAL 


Denver  Alfalfa  Milling  & Products  Co., 

Hartman,  Col. 

18482 

Alfalfa  Meal  

Lambertville  . . . 

8.02 

13.44 

12.00| 

1 

1.67 

1.50 

34.01 

35.00 

Albert  Dickinson  Co,,  Chicago,  111. 

18746 

Alfalfa  Meal  

Plainfield  

8.07 

15.63 

12.00| 

1 

1.66 

1.00 

1 

27.26 

35.00 

Ezl.  Dunwoody  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

180029 

Pure  Alfalfa  Meal  

Millville  

7.98 

14.31 

14.00 

: 1.64 

2.00 

27.18 

30.00 

Hales  & Edwards  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

180009 

Red  Comb  Alfalfa  Meal  

Vineland 

9.70 

12.25 

13.50 

1.23 

1.00 

33.41 

35.00 

Meader-Atlas  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18204 

Piirestork  Alfalfa  Meal  

Oradell  

8.31 

14.88 

12.00 

1:78 

1.00 

29.45 

33.00 

Neustadt  & Co.,  New  York  City. 

18690 

Red  Star  Brand  California  Alfalfa  Meal 

Caldwell  

7.66 

18.19 

15.00 

1.56 

1.40 

23.66 

29.50 

Nowak  Milling  Corporation,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

18272 

Domino  Alfalfa  Meal 

Rockaway  

7.49 

16.81 

10.00 

1.62 

1.00 

26.61 

35.00 

Omaha  Alfalfa  Milling  Co.,  Omaha,  Neb. 

18068 

Alfalfa  Meal  

Hackensack  .... 

9.45 

14.63 

12.00 

1.57 

1.00 

25.25 

30.00 

Park  & Pollard  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 

18285 

Alfalfa  Meal  

Dover  

7.89 

20.19 

12.00 

1.88 

1.50 

23.43 

30.00 

J.  C.  Smith  & Wallace  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18662 

Alfalfa  Meal  

Newark  

7.64 

11.94 

15.31 

1.42 

1.98 

30.60 

25.33 

Somers  & Co.,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

18042 

Red  Star  Brand  Alfalfa  Meal  

Camden  

7.41 

17.25 

15.00 

1.67 

1.40 

30.28 

1 

29.50 

Otto  Weiss  Milling  Co.,  Wichita,  Kan. 

18150 

Alfalfa  Meal  

Paterson  

7.00 

14.06 

14.00 

1.47 

1.50 

27.30 

35.00 

i 

1 

Average  

8.05 

15.30 

1.60 

28.20 

1 

Bulletin  327 

DRIED  BEET  PULiP 


27 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of 
Sampling 

IMoisture 

Protein 

Fat 

Fiber 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

|Hottelet  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

18998 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  

npmrlpn 

5.88 

1 0 ”^1 

Q on 

A /CC 

50052 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  • 

Perth  Amboy  .. 

9.53 

1 U*  0 1 

8.81 

o.UU 

8.00 

U.OO 

0.84 

0.50 

0.50 

19.90 

20.27 

20.00 

20.00 

Larrowe  Milling  Co.,  Detroit,  Mich. 

1 

20.00 

'8574 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  

Princeton  Jet.  . 

9.72 

9.31 

8.00 

0.57 

0.50 

1 

19.79 

18789 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  

Townley  

8.16 

8.31 

8.00 

0.64 

0.50 

18.78 

20.00 

Maritime  Trading  Corporation,  N.  Y.  City. 

50016 

Bull  Brand  Dried  Beet  Pulp  

Mullica  Hill  ... 

8.27 

8.81 

8.00 

0.60 

0.50 

18.95 

20.00 

Average  

8.31 

9.11 

0.66 

19.54 

COCOANUT  MEAL 


18867 

American  Milling  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

Pure  0.  P.  Cocoanut  Meal 

Bordentown  . . . 

5.89 

22.44 

20.00 

7.03 

6.00 

1 

j 

10.27 

11.00 

18828 

Neustadt  & Co.,  New  York  City. 

Cocoanut  Oil  Meal  

Long  Branch  .. 

16.32 

18.81 

20.00 

4.94 

3.00 

9.45 

15.00 

18346 

Oil  Seeds  Co.,  Bayonne,  N.  J. 

Coco  Brand  Cocoanut  Meal  

Bernardsville  .. 

9.56 

18.75 

20.00 

12.44 

7.00 

9.01 

10.00 

i 

Average  

10.59 

20.00 

8.14 

9.58 

COPRA  CAKE  MEAL 


18453 

American  Milling  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

Copra  Meal  

Frenchtown  . . . 

6.31 

20.56 

20.00 

9.20 

1 

1 

6.00 

1 

i 

9.56|11.00 

1 

9.74|10.00 

18930 

M.  F.  Baringer,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Copra  Cake  Meal  

Moorestown  . . . 

8.49 

20.44 

21.00 

8.02 

6.00 

— 

Average  

7.40 

[20.50 

8.61 

1 

9.65| 

PEANUT  OIL  MEAL 


Oil  Seeds  Co.,  Bayonne,  N. 

J. 

18494j  Peanut  Oil  Meal — Beta 

Brand  

Three  Bridges  . 

7.40 

29.81 

30.00 

12.12 

7.00 

9.11 

8.00 

28 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


puno.. 


p33;UBJEUQ 


puno^j 


p33;UBJEn0 


puuoj 


aaiHsiojY 


fa  o 

o iz 

M 13 

U (L, 

r < 
^ C/) 


» [,1 

O “ 

u 2 

gp 

s s 


jaquin^  uoi;bj^ 


rt  cj  ’O 

M £ 

rO 

o 

U rt  o 
^ 'O  CJ 

eg 

'c3 


rt 

0 - (L) 
5 lu 

4J  P 


o 


§ 


< 


fa  ^ 
p 


o fa 


™ 1) 
4J 

i!  fa 


C 73 

■>e  c 
P 3 

O 

u W 
(l>  <u 

I ^ 

o 


- to 

a; 

4:3 


<u 

fa  -3 


s ^ 

fa  « 


o <;  w 
U P 
>.  S 

be  o 


WHEAT  FEED 


Bulletin  327 


29 


12; 


H 


W 


Chas.  A.  Krause  M’Tg  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.  I 1 

18296  Badger  Fancy  Middlings  Branchville  ...|  7.30  13.50  12. 0'Oj  7.72  4.50  3.63|  7.00Maizo  red  dog  flour  and  wheat  middlings  with 

I ground  screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run. 


30 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


c 

O -M 


^ 2 

-g 

o S 


"2  6 
C t,  lU 

2 


S Tl 

o o ^ 

rt 

Ci  (L) 

« a « 
3 .S«.E 

’3) 

^ bo  -o 


in 


bO 


O .C  ^ 

'S  .5 

2 2 . 

E o cfl 


“ vii 
c c E 

« S g 

C/)  H 


•3  2 
§ 


rt  bo 

c c 

oj  O 

'in  U 


8 

c . 

rt  in 


2 .2 

bo  '3 

'O  c 
•u  2 
o 

o y 


:=:  ^ t3  o 
j3  O rt  'O 


rt  -O 

o 


bo  “ 
•t  3 rt 
° 

23c 

V B O 

i S « 

« ° c 

rt  ^ frt 

55  rt 

8 J « 

S o 


+5 

in'  ’c3 

rt  “ 
O -tS 
„ C 
C 


o ^ 
3 o 
^ <« 
° T3 

c 


bo 


o _r 
^ S S 

C rt 


S rt 
° O 

O '3 

o <u  <u 


•n  S 
c 


■S  1“ 

cU  J3  m 
OT  "H  ‘rt 

O rt  2 
3 ° bo 

^ T3 

O W D 

;|--i 

S “ « 


2 rt  .22 

bo  3 '3 


bo 


^ s 

•o  .3 
o rt 
u u 
o.  bO 

if-s 


O 

flj  ^ 

1-3  15 -3  S 

2 g ° 2 ’2 

rt  -3  ~ ^ 

- § 

3 o 

rt  ii 

w O 


2 •'^'2  "S 

C U Sj 

'5  -d 
feii  c c 
3 rt  ii 

s 

•r)  bo 

C 

w C 

3 o J? 
’O  h,  g 
g bo  y 

3 ’O 

2 •3*'  3 

bo3 

~ d ij 

2^3 


? rt 


(U 

a .Tl 

a -K  ^ 
-3  3 


in  in 
3 -g 
2 g 
a 

<n 


O O 
o O 


o o 
o o 


o o 
o o 


punoj 


a\  ^ 

O ^ ON 

~o 


p331UBJBn0 


'o  o 

LO  VO 

r4  <0 
o\ 


punoj-j 


paajuBJEnQ 


punoj 


aarnsiojv 


o S 
« < 
U (d 

«Q 
h a 


^ S 

o o 

d>  o 


c<i  00  '-; 

o 06  00 


2 rt 
H P-i 


H <I 


c 

ss 

II 

< > 


j ”8  - 

m2; 

rt  ; 

(U  HH  << 

< 

< 

.y 

*:  . 
c/2  ^ .2  :S 

U a; 
^ <v 

■s  3 S 

■g 

■5 

•d 

r 

0 

-3  ^ 1) 

0 C ,0  PI^ 

-d 

(U 

« n: 
U-i  4. 

-d 

w 

1 w 

1 tLl 

•d 

W -3 

W w 

PL|  w , 

-d 

w 

w 

Ph 

V- 

t- 

! ?• 

w 

w 

Ph 

! -3 

^.2 

bo 

.3  S 

° 3 U 

U V 

“ 2 “ s 

lU 

u ^ 

0 ^ 3 

pH 

<y 

c3  u 

U5 

Ml 

0 

1 ^ 
i s 

! W 
! ^ 
i bo 

5 

Jd  P 

ia|« 

S - S S 

-3  0 2 

So  P 

(DC/)  0 

c c 

wo  w 

W .2 

K 

a 

0 

H 

pL 

c 

; £ 

> C 

; ^ 

1 a 

0 

1 ^ 

'11 

3 3 3 0 

g <u  0 3 

d E 

i ^ 

g 8 

a 

£ 

1 E 

1 a 

0 

i: 

8 1-1  "C  c/3 

0 a> 

c/3  < C/3 

c/3  Ph 

H 

< 

: < 

i H 

rt  ^ 

jaquin^^  uoiiB^g 


Bulletin  327 


31 


O -.o 

d S3 

o ^ 

"S”  'S 

V 

<4-1  >1 

C (/“ 

o o 


£ s i 

bo  O 

- O t3 


s • 2 3 

^ a 


rt  nS  U O 


II 

._•' 

.«■' s 
^ 6 
u 

S cd 

c ° 

3 

c3 


6 cT 


T3  ^ „ 

■S  S I 

> O '« 

O 44 

o,  ca 

” TJ  <U 

o 

c £ 

ca  X5 


•3  C 


'S'H 

>.  (« 
ii  c 


ca  u o w o tj 


.a  « ca 


S 8 ^ « S 


a -a 

rr^  « CO 


>>  S 

^ S 
^ TJ 

'a  § 
o 
la 

‘L>  — 
43  ^ 
? C 


O >< 


CO  ^ 

^ "ca 

r-H  O 

>44  S 

O — , 


I® 

TS  44 

'i  .§ 


.a  rt  >< 

bO  43  _C 

c ,/■  S 


'S  'O 

m 00 


D 43  a tn  O (U  O 

U (fl  ca  C ^ '-'  01 

2 2 


-a- 
a ^ 

3 <L> 
a ni 


<u  c 

a -a  qj 
^ a t: 

ra  01  2 

o g be 

o 


o, 

^ i 

o 

t/T  «3 

bo  3 

a 


••-  ca 

’3  O 

•a  « 


43  ^ 

rt  a 

<u  <u 

% ^ 
bo 

s' « 

£ P 


a e 


G V.  ^ 


33  a 

V 

.'H  3 


a ™ 00  e 

o h,  <M  a 


a :S 


lu  ^ 

% s 


o , . a o 


a a 


^ -a" 
a 03 
a (D 

a fl  1 


ei^ 

43 


a ij 

U _ (O 

ta  g c3 


c/)  U 


o bo  S 


o 

VO 

X 

X 

On 

r>. 

-t-  ro 

o 

-r  X 

'X 

o\ 

»— ' 

VC  Gv 

T 

VC 

-t  'C 

VC 

VO 

VO 

o 

VO 

VC 

VO  ^ 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o o 

._ 

O 

o o 

o 

O 

o 

VO 

o 

o 

o o 

O 

O VO 

o 

o 

I< 

X 

o 

O 

X 

VO 

v6  v6 



'N 

T-H 

T-H 

t-H 

1-H  T-H 

oi 

O]  r-^ 

o 

*+ 

ON 

03 

-t* 

GN 

O VO 

r-H 

fo  1— 1 

VO 

vO 

VC 

o^ 

GN 

lO  VO 

ro 

ro 

^ X 

VC 

00 

o 

o 

1-2 

o 

1-2  (^i 

O 

ol 

o\  q6 

03 

t-H 

^3 

r-H 

1-H 

»— ' t-H 

1-H 

03 

03  T-H 

rs4 

-f 

VO 

'Tf 

ro 

•o 

X 

oi  o 

O} 

O 

X G\ 

oq 

O 

ON 

G\ 

o 

O 

ro 

ON 

fO  hH 

Gs 

oc 

00 

00 

ol  0\ 

G^ 

00 

VO  1-2 

<a 

CQ 


3 3 

pq  pq 


2 a 

hH  _0 

o 

OJ 

tn 

'a 

CD 

o'  rt 
fcO  P2i 
ca 

>> 

.£  >> 

2 

43  i3 

o 

Q 

O 

U ca 

- P 

o 

G 

u 

cS  £ 

G 

o 

o 

0<j  _0 

ca  4j 

«£ 
&*  >. 


P ra 


’O  Tt- 

o 

40  to 
00  00 


FEED  MIXTURES— (Continued) 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Fiber 

paa^uBJEng 

punaj 

paa;uEJBn0 

puno^ 

Protein 

paa;uBJEn0 

punoj 

aanjsiojv 

PS  < 
M a 

« P 


jaquin^  uoi^Bjg 


X ^ 

‘s  S 


<u  bo 

rt  c 

C ^ G 
o -g  <u 
li  P <u 


bo 

X)  G 


^ cr. 


G 

G ^3 
« 2 
bo  9^ 

G ^ 
13  03 
2 ° 
bo  73 


• bo 

ON 

IT)  73 


MI  ° 


- QJ 
W UJ 
bo  U3 


c 2 

(U  S 
<L> 


b«.S 

C 03  V, 

‘■S  bo  J 

O 5 -u 


•’S  C 

§ S S 


::^  b/)  X 

(y 

I g S' 

o X 

fi  I-,  c3 

g XI  CC 


s S 


S b073 

•-G 

feil . 
S I:.! 
£ S S«s 

X « c ^ 


oq  (N 

ON  ON 
CM  <M 
00  CO 


a a 

s e 


M-i  ^ 

"rt  'J 

„ 73 

tn  G 

1 2 

bO 


o o 

e s 

73  73 
G G 
03  o3 


s s 


MS-' 
> e 3 
G 
03 

O o3 
- O 


1-.  bo 

o 73  ^ : 


2 B 


S S 03 
o3  oi  1- 
C/i  CT!  U 


G O ^ ^ 

O (fi  ^ ^ 

■s  c i2  i2  ' 

XJ  O rt  03 

O O 

73  ii  2 - ^ 

« 2 o £ £ 

os  X o b *3 

O o 

><  r 3 r 1 ; 


flj-  73  *: 

y <L(  ^ 

^ (U  OS 

‘-'(0(0 

cT  o 

£ a *=! 

O O 

“ c 
s 2 

G 03  _rN 


(O  73 
G (U 
"G  OJ 


rt  “ j- 

1)  3 bo 
>>  o ^ • 

g CO  2 

73  a in  ^ 

5 % 0° 

-CO  5 X 

73  P 

73  rt  oj  3 

I S ” 


^ «4H  0)  cd 


(D  V 

g £ 

a: 


ro  00 

Tf  \0 

oa  CO 


<N  o 

CO  CO 


O O O 
lo  lo  O 
VO  ON 


1— I c\ 

CO  T-H  ro 
VO  00  CO 


O r-H  ^ 


bJO  c3 

il! 


73 

<u  G 


Q P 


Q Q '2 

CO  CO  A 

a;  a:  P 


^ V 

P 


03  cc3 
V V 

^ p 


O 

^ '■J 

C CO 

o G 


U ^ 

CO 


rcb  C 

o 

ou 


^ CO 
P X ? M 


c-  .i 


ps;  cA! 


o 

a: 

tl 

o 

^ 'S 

v 43 

55  p 
- >» 
o .G 

U 03 


00  (?N 

00  CM 
00  00 


X CO  O 
X (On  7- 
CM  CO  00 
00  00  00 


Bulletin  327 


33 


^ SI 
- c 


S3  § 2 

^ x; 


rt  — (U  ^ 


c ^ 

nj  CJ 

- I 

T. 


S3  rt 

^ <U  O 

” u)  X 

n I 

° o ?? 

C — *■  « 


U5  T3 
C •u 
• 5 4> 


1/3  1« 

rt  ti 
‘‘J  ^ 

>'  s 

-o  S' 


12  ^ 
(U  ""  *0 

§ c °° 


Ij  X ~ ^ c ^ 

X « i3  c X 


a ' 

"3  !^ 

<u  1 

n3  T1 

(U  OJ 

•r  -o 


<u 

S I 


(V  ^ V 

B i e 


a/'  rt 

^SS 

c I 

O o 


c:  g 

1/3  Tj 


£ 

O XJ 

i:  c 


■w  ^ rt 


c.  C 

-O  'U 
c o 


« -a  s 

.£  g 

a ^ 5 


>.  „ 

<L)  X'  X 

T!  « 5 

lU  ™ 
X 6 X 


(U  C 

tn  .1^ 

II 

O g 

“ x 

tn  ^ OJ 
bX)  ^ mh 

•X 

X uT  .g 
X tc  c 

'5  .S  o 

~ C X 

, (D 

'g  xl 

X «3  03 

> C/) 

1 3 ^ 

bo  E X " 
c bo  g 

X S'" 

X g cn 

S § 1 " 

^ ^ 6 a 

O in 


X X 

S2  c 

? 03 


- a 


11 
a c 


S - C13 

_ C (U 

« £ a 

X 

^ rt  ‘o 

„ <u 

c X _r 


1/3  S 

•"  o 
O 


o3  lU 

a 


X ^ 

■u  r-l 

X 


a a 
u 


<u  2 
’Sd  t3 

£ § 

O P 


rl  X 

<«  a 


? s 

u 


. ; 

_43 

T3 

o 

’c3 

75 

rt 

bo 

c 

o 

o 

tJ 

bo 

c 

o 

o 

«l> 

o 

"S) 

_c 

X 

13 

X 

c 

'g 

_43 

’> 

in 

s 

X 

c 13 

03  X 

a j 

c 

43 

X 

g 

03 

■g 

43 

' X 

1 O 

£ 

X 

g 

03 

'> 

X 

43 

c 

03 

<U 

Ph 

cu 

H 

£ s 

o 

> 

li3 

u 

CQ 

p: 

u 

oS 

V 

Q-g 

g^ 

c 

u 

u 


K : G 

(u  1 -d 

a : a 


43  , , 10 

Q X .a  js 

4/  a "o 

^ r^  O X 

g X ° S 

43  O 

u w 


uw  t/> 

K <u 


2 


be  --  g O 

2 u pq  ffi 

S o ••''2 

s 5 J 

X 42  X 
O be  ‘o 

^ « >3^ 


^ ’S 

■i  ^ 

X 43 

13  t 

X o 

G ffi 


o < 

G 

. be 


>^  .a 

rt 

..  c« 

o o; 

«—  V5 
75 

^ JS 

3 o 

m 

<s'l 

o G 
2 >- 
W ^ 

43  < 
X 
O 

O 


rr>  O 
O 00 
O 00 


FEED  MIXTURES— (Continued) 


34 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


paajuBJBnQ 


S s I 

bo  ^ 

;s 's  I 

-S-S  n 


nj  ^ 


“ C 

rt  « 


2 y 

^ c P 
•ii  o a 


G 2 
G 

bfi 

•£  "o 

S)'« 
. S S 

3 ^ 
P ii 


T3 

§ - 
. O “ 

b,-5 

bO  ^ 

<V5  2 

00  'G' 


u P 
P <u 

.S  -p 

a ^ 

o 


1 o 

rA)  U 


<u  o 
o o 

^ 'G 

tn  O 

O 

U 


8 o 

O 'O 

^ 5 

0 2 

1 s 

£ -p 

bO  ^ 


"p  'o 
oj  2 
. J3  P 


--P 

•73  £ £ 

p p.  s 


tn  '73 

D (U  r»> 

^ "o  "5 


•tJ  <” 

i ^ 


73 

.a  " 

6tn 

bc 

^ .S 

s § 

P P 


‘"'Hi' 
^ H "p 


.&  -1-5 

”0  "rt  vO 


O ^ >4-1 

Tl  O 

. ’O 

2 p <« 

S cs  i> 


(U  qj  c3 


^ x> 

00  73 


uj  O 


a 

o 

u 

^ 'O  ^ 
a oj  5 
f:j  ^ <3^ 

s s 


i 

^JZ 

p - H 

« S I 

CO  e 

" 05  rt 


t;  p P 

p 05  — cci 

O in  < in 


punoj 


p93}ueaEn0 


puuo^i 


0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

q 

0 

Ov' 

o\  cvj 

”1" 

cS 

06 

06 

00 

fNl 

VO 

VO 

^ 

inH 

t-H 

’-H 

r-~t 

»— « 

CM 

CM 

0 

r-^  a\ 

ON 

0 

On 

VO 

00 

00 

00 

CM 

00 

CM 

0 

0 

m CNj 

VO 

0 

VO 

ro 

1“ 

VO 

00 

0 

CO 

OC 

0 

06  ON 

0 

to 

ON 

t>I 

to 

to 

to 

rf 

00 

On 

’-* 

t-H 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

to 

to 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

to 

to 

0 

0 

0 

to  -r 

oj 

ro 

7-H 

r-. 

CO 

c4 

cnJ 

0 

cS 

00  00 

ro 

r<H 

ON 

00 

0 

C?v 

10 

1-H 

00 

VO 

ON 

(Nl 

0 

4-1 

0 

00 

-t^  ^ 

ro 

to 

to 

cvi 

rH 

eg 

<N 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

q 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

q 

0 

fo  0 

o^ 

On 

CC 

oc 

0^ 

ON 

<N 

cvi 

c5 

d 

r^j 

rvj  r-^ 



-f  0 

-f. 

0 

00 

fO 

to 

i-~t 

0 

'M 

fM 

’--i- 

T-H 

-t  0 

t— 

ON 

ro 

VO 

0 

0 

”1" 

CM 

0 

v6  CNJ 

0 

ON 

0 

0 

0 

T-i 

CO 

1-4 

CO 

t-H 

1 

(M 

T— ( 

7—1 

’— ' 

i-H 

■7— ' 

1-H 

o^ 

0 -1- 

^1 

to 

y-^ 

ON 

ON 

CM 

ON 

On 

CO 

0 

VO 

to 

NO 

ro 

CVl 

1— 1 

CO 

rt" 

to 

CM 

CO 

cS  06 

CO 

ON 

ON 

-t 

ro 

ON 

CO 

to 

CO 

1— ( 

»-H 

1— 1 

■t-H 

T— • 

p 

Q 

is  , 

• i 

1- 

0 

0 

>. 

"p 

c« 

qj 

JsJ 

0 

■qj  ^ 

W ^ 

p 

is 

4) 

G, 

rt  Lee 

'o 

13 

dj 

p 

0 

cn 

13 

-0 

rt 

NJ 

'0 

0 

<u 

< 

li 

0 

CD 

U 

rt 

0 cfl 

0 

0 

u 

rt 

"rt 

4) 

rt 

5 

s 

G X 

_G 

ffi 

L, 

Ph 

:2^ 

pL, 

Ph 

(In 

^ a 
w 5 

6 ^ 
U o 
u 'o 

^ C 


^ (U 

p ^ 

a ^ 

P o 

a £ 

8 CA. 
^ c 
w n 
■Z% 

5 cH 


^ p 

u -p 


^ 3 

I Q ^ 

£3  CA  -73 


■5 

ri^ 

o ^ 


73  73 

7-  <LI  (U 

2 4)  qj 

qj  P-i 


A o 

73^ 


° < < 


OJ  ^ 


<L>  <D 


rQ  4-»  ^ Qj 

u ^ rt  u -u 

O G O O O G 


W 


o oc 
G 


VO  00 
10 

O T-c  VC 
O 00  00 

00  T-l  r-i 


jaqiun^SI  uoqBis 


Bulletin  327 


35 


W 4, 

° ja  a 

S -S’ 


S ° 

c c 

8 8 
'S 

n! 

O ^ 
TS  - 


6 

O , 

-73  “ 


^ 3 U) 
<T3  O bO 
4)  bO  .rt 


« 3 o 
■o 'd  " 
Wo*" 
- 

(U  ^ 

be  oj 

5 E ° £• 
2 S-S  S 
^ 15  -S'  +J 

6 W CJ  rt 

g g X 
ai  ^3  (/T  & 

OJ  (U 


g . 


bo 


^ 4)  O o 


C -TS  S 

O C ° r- 

S § ^ W .S 

8 2 S)^o  g 

bo  ^C  ^ 4> 
^ C o 

bo  T3  <U  <+H  U5 

C OJ  w o _ 

•ja  <u  h "O 

g 4;  .2  t3 

" 3 S g 

15  M M ^ , 

g rr-  g • 

3 3 

^ O 3 O 

„ O O I- 

uT  i-  0, 

= ■ 

3 tj  ^ ja 
^ w 


s ^ 
g 6 


gi 


in  u 


3 g 
> 


04  & 

g g 

rt  rt 

(fi  cn 

tn  w) 


3 C 
cs  rt 

c/)  cn 


00  10  10  10 


o o 
o o 

VO  VO 


T3  M 
4)  3 

a -3 


ua  bo  bo 


« 3 
§ 

2 P 


to 

3 S 

oa  O’ 

3^ 

g 


T3 

3 . 3 

rt  c nj 


bO  M 

3 rt 

'S| 

4)  S 


O W nJ  ^ 


o be  sa  3 


g 3 <u  'P 


•3  4) 

3 B 


4)  ’O 

> 4) 

> Hi 


g ^ 

2 “ 
ja  ba 
3 

g Ta 

g 3 
g f 

41  rt 
bo  4) 

3 ■> 


3 Ph 


o ^ 


bo  O 


•Ti 

'O  M-4 

o ^ 

l-s, 

3 

g o 
o 


g g 

■n  -p 

•u  j_. 

^ g 

3 ^ 
o 

o 


a ^ C 


(O 


U 


O 

ov  vd 


ro  (N  CM 


ON  10  O 


0000 


O O O VO 


CM 

cd  Tf 


O 4)  3 u 


H O 3 O 


. bo 

3-r 

.&  c 

O 

> 


.i; 

s:  ^ ^ ^ 

r:  <u  ^ ^ t£ 

L)  a;  <u  o ^ 

r,  (L)  fll 


f£  <u 
^ lx. 


■ 1 ^ 

J O) 

in  o 


3 

3 ^ 


S2  C 


Z 3 


M < 


|0 

i c 

U 


:-  3 

3 2 


;< 


3 

T1  8 1^ 
W tlH 


3 O 


rt 

O 


00  ON  eg  CN 
lO  Cn  ON  Cn 

X X 00  oc 


CNJ  O 

X o 

^ X 


EED  MIXTURES — (Continued) 


36 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


p33;uBJEn0 


be  S) 


CJ  T3 


'Sis 

" s 


rt  3 
V 


6 . 


rn  K 


o 

£ e « ^ 

2 ^ 

c3 

^ S O t3 
.c  s „ c 


C (L) 

03  <U  " 2 O 

<«  V.  S o 


0)  'S  W.S- 

c S ° « 

s o ^ ^ it! 

ch  S <; 


r-H  ^ 

^ ^ Ji 

a CL 

S ^ E 

ct  ^ d 

c/5  CO  (/3 

C/)  2 V3 

rt  O c3 


S ^ ^ 

C c S' 
£ G 


o o o 

O 03  \0 


O O O 

v6  n- 


<u  •-:  G 
c/2  < ^ 


punojj 


0\  03  O 

03  O 


paajuBJBnQ 


ID  O IT) 
O 03  >-5 


m LO  vr> 


puno^,] 


p331UBJEn0 


o o o 
o o o 
o o o 


punoj 


lO  on  03 
03  O 


3jn;siioj\i 


o 

G oQ 


G c 
2 2 
get: 
o (U  rt 

O I-.  C, 

m e-  6/2 


2 c 


& 

oj  o 

•1  s 

-o  t3 


hJ  H 


O ^ o 


ffi  H 


H Q 

< i 

u,  < 

o 

z 

< 


c§ 

tn  ' .G  y 
G rt  2 
u • Q ^ 

V .2 

(U  o 

G = 
« rt 


<u 

u 

o ;2 


a a 3/2 
o o 

OJ  D ^ 

S S « 


n3 
(U 
V 

>33 

(U 

C lu 
2 ^ 


(U  i" 

w o 

2 X 


y.  y.  2 


2*  t*  2, 

5 0 


W o 
oa  W 


u u u 


2 c 

en  O 

03  CJ 


in  {n 
O O 

W ffi 


C G 
O oJ 
U t-1 


jaquia^  uouBig 


o o 
o o 
o G 


Tj-  \0 

T-H  03 


bo  ? 
C W 

W ^ 


^ r 


Bulletin  327 


37 


V O 

(U  c 

•3 

^ ^ c 
Q.  2 

lU  UJ 

"'S  ^ s ' 

-O  2 

V •« 

^ Si  s 
’C  ^ 

^ ^ t;! 

- C 55 

^ £ -s 

W)  o ^ 

C r- 

” s S 

O O 


>>  G2 

TO  •- 

3 P ^ 

G 6 

'^1- 

TO  w- 

p .G 

P3  T3 

p a ^ 

S >1 


'c  ' 

'g  TO 
S u 

rC 

G ^ 
2 

M TO 


2-^ 

> § 
> 2 
bo 

^ .2 

W 05 

^ § 


bo  S 3 S 
a ^ %.B 

o 6 to  ^ 
o o bo  ns 

^ -2  S 

S >.  ’O  4-. 

P ? "O  TO 

” .5  "P  <U 
TS  TO  ^ "S 
<u  £ ^ 

m rt  ^ 
TO  uj  QJ  T3 
C -G  C 

£-pl  « 

8 C TO 
TO  1-1 


s 3 


•s  S §5 

'S  g e 


s 


^ .2 

c -o 


tT  ^ 
<u  i: 


I- 

<u 

<U  TO 

h TO 

M O 

c « 

§ s 

O O 

W)  -c) 

P .G 


rt  SN  . 
« <N 
C 00 
x)  O 

|gs 

3 •>  (u 
a.9  o, 

I 6 

s|  f 

« a TO 


c S 

TO  K 

tr> 


bo  ^ 


2 £ 


o TO  o 1) 


to"  G 

<U  rG 
TO  TO 

g O, 
2 "P 

e g 

4; 

a « 

05 

o :3 


^ 05 

qj 

qj  CX 

S 

^ TO 

oT 


<i; 


o o 

V 


£ 

05 


c^  CO 

V V 

6 CO 
CO 

r2 

•S  Q 


G 

rt  r;^ 
a o 


p CO 
flj 

bo  in 

CO 

q; 

.2  o 

J e 

U 


O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

03 

in 

in 

o 

in 

in 

00  in 

b 

03 

Os 

1-H 

03 

03 

PO 

1— t 

1-H 

1-H 

03 

1-H 

1-H 

U-) 

03 

CO 

03 

a\ 

VO 

O 

ON  O 

o 

o 

tN. 

O 

XO 

o 

m 

VO 

VO 

o.  o 

VO 

ON 

03 

1-4 

ON 

03 

03 

K 

in 

00 

1-h'  v6 

«>! 

1-H 

»— 1 

1— • 

03 

03 

03 

1-H 

1-H 

1-H  1-H 

1-H 

1-H 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

CZ> 

ro 

CO 

03 

03 

03 

03 

oi 

oq  oj 

03 

03 

03 

00 

OO 

o\ 

00 

m 

00 

o 

Ov 

i-< 

in 

•x 

03 

in 

in 

00 

o 

cn 

m VO 

VO 

ON 

rx 

VO 

03 

cn 

oi 

ro  03 

03 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

b o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

d> 

o 

1-H 

00 

00 

00 

00 

CO  o 

00 

b 

03 

03 

1-H  T-H 

fO 

to 

to 

o 

rro 

VO 

o 

o 

03 

VO 

03 

00 

o 

\o 

in 

ON 

oq  00 

00 

o 

o 

yJi 

t< 

o 

00 

as 

00 

ui  o\ 

00 

1-^ 

rk 

03 

03 

03 

1-H 

1-H 

VO 

VO 

00 

-t 

00  03 

Tj* 

03 

PO 

Ov 

o 

Ov 

00 

00 

m 

1-H 

oc 

00 

00 

03 

xf 

in 

PO 

r-H  03 

VO 

VO 

PO 

t-H 

1—* 

1-H 

1 

o 

T3 

>> 

c 

05 

(/) 

a 

O 

o 

05 

in 

O 

u 

c 

c 

V 

T3 

G 

rt 

o 

u 

V 

1? 

TO 

& 

W 

C 

<u 

o5 

u 

o 

G5 

o 

& 

-2 

"S) 

G 

crt 

V 

s 

o 

CO 

c 

1-.  ° 

> « 

O 2 

>. 

<u 

TO 

Vh 

w 

o 

a: 

o 

c 

o 

c 

<u 

o 

Ph 

"Z 

ffi 

M 

W 

K 

(k 

P H 

H 

H 

c '« 

•G  G 

_ OJ 

g:  cih 


>> 

u 

I- 

o 

C TJ 

ID 

^ <u 

TO 

rG  (u 

^ I 

c 


•G  T3 
TO  W 
1-  <U 

O 


O 

'S 

TO 

-a 
o ^ 


< < 


G 

O 

. <u 

-M  qj 

C/5  fl, 

6 oJ 

u - 

CO  c/) 
^ V 

O ‘iJ 

c 

rt 

o Ph 


xn 

VO 


VO 

a\ 

XTi 


FEED  MIXTURES — ( Continued ) 


38 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


? o bc 


9"^ 
>>  c 


S c 


:3 

be  2 
o 

C o 

t- 

O in 


o.B° 

-o  2 ^ 
<U  bo 
o-  — 

CL  ^ T? 
1.1  ^ 
__r  (/5 


42  t3  o 
3 a 

p T)  N^- 

b o 


>>  c 

- ^ oi 

S ^ <n 


o 

S?  •- 
bo  rt 


1 


Oj 

o -a 
c 

rt  bo 

° .S  ’O 

t3  ^ 

c 42  3 
§ 43  o 
o 


2 i 


S .S  ” 

^ "c3  +j 
‘o  bo 


T)  73 


.2 


w g .3 


bS 


Cl  c 


^ ^ - .s 


C c 


TJ  3 


"in  O 


o 


e 


c 

§ 


3 
2 ^ 
bo 


u 'V 
V c 
^ 3 


° S 
-o 


vu 

V ^ 

^ £ .3 
'a  >:; 

^ S .-g  ^ 

o rt  o 


r4  cs 
44?  bo 

2 -O 
<u 

af 


(«  3 


b$  'S 


o 

V 3 

E o 


-.c  . <u  0\ 

o a g 

'd  “ 

S?  ^ -2 

3 ^ "3  o- 
£ 

° g 

I 2 


cn  U 


<h  O 


2 a 

O 03 
U C/3 


paaiuBJEnQ 


punoij 


p33;ucaEUQ 


O lO 
in  VO 


oq  cq  ro 


o o 
oq  cvq 


punoj 


paaiuEJEny 


punoj 


ajnisiojY 


jaqiunf^  uoijEig 


VO  ^ 
cq  fo 


00  1^7 
.-i’  00 


U 


& ^ 
o o 
CJ  J2 
o 

^ JtH 
S >v 


ITS 

is 


u 


-■3 


h2  3 

K pq 


C Q 


o "s 
P P 


os  'd  33 
c 1) 
3 (u  2 

O P 

- (U  HJ 

cl  k " 

U o o 


03  <4  <4 


^ iJ  <u 

.3  P P-i 

rt 

a 


~Ov 
VO  r< 

o 


,47|  12.00 1 Corn,  eats,  alfalfa 


Bulletin  327 


39 


§ B 


s s 


S\o  eg  ^ 13  VO 
. ’o  ^ C ^ 
^ S P Ivv  rt 
00  c oo  oo 


P ii 
& ® a 
S rt  £ 

rt  <+H 


o <U  , - (U 

S ^ S 

nj  -r  03  nJ 

in  < u'j  O tn 


V 

'o  -5  ^ 
« .ti  c 
•u  > t 
S ^ o 

C o 
pc 


i (U 

V 


E & 3 


.S 

il  s 

•«  .'H  «r 

«a  ^ 

2 ^p 


<u  'rt 

6 u) 


« o 

jj  c3  00 

s 

P ,2  'O  0) 

o T)  p "p. 


O P 


P -f  ^ 

M « 'TJ 


bo  S 


'a  S E 
S ii 

’a 

rt 

j/T  (o  oT 


? P 

a £ 


^ f*5  'P 


- 43  c 

a £ 

i t 

0)  CO  ^ 


• g c « S 

a p £ a 

rt  O 3 rt 

rn  L)  CL,  rr> 


33  rt 
3 O 
•P  T) 
4J  P 
rt  rt 
O 

T3 
13  <U 
C U 

5 »<-i 


a a 


P 3 

!-  O 

o •- 

u a 


-p  » rt 

(U  (U 

<0  a, 

P S 3 
rt  ^ £ 


tJ  4^  CQ 
tM  o CO 

3 

>>  -3 

.S  2 ^ 

a 9<-i 


(U  S cn 

g P bO 

” .S 

S £ 1 

^.15  E 
K.  o 
bo  •»■> 

^ 3 ° 

3 "§  42 

‘g  bo's 

+J  ’p 


^ O 


o o o o o 
o o o o o 


o o o o o 

o o o o o 

in  LO  vd  »o  o 


m rn  csi 


o o o o o o 
o o o o o o 
o3  oa  ^ ^ 


00  rn  o 00 
rg  ^ o 00  m 


Tt  rd  00  ON 


ooooooooo 


o 

eg  <N 


o m o o lo 


o o vo  »— ' 

-r  't  O O 00  On 


O O 1-1  1-H  o o 


o o o 
o d 


O O o o o o 


o o o o o 
o d o d d 


^ r-H  ON  ':m  -I- 


NO  On  NO  \0 


2 2 .^3 

^ ^ ? 

'E  2 ’3  c3  c3 

in  O 5 fe  .3 

« ® S V W P 

a.  m C3  ^ ^ S 


^ CM  VO  00  oc  00  mj 

CM  <M  O VO  VO  VO  05 

t3  r3  IT)  ro  CM  CO  CO 


£ 


2 P 


^ ° S 2 

»s|  So 

CJ  _ (U  < 


COVn^^LaJU^l-"-;^  ^C13  li 

uh§up^:^h7^>  KOh  h 


4;  <u  45  OJ 


Uh  h 


■w/  U 

V v 


•-  o o 

4j  -3 

" n!  ai 


4)  4J  O .2 

w:  W3  03  ^ 

^ i::  ^ 

l-H  O , 
r ) 

c/3 


• 1.  /-V  ^ e3  >*/ 

t/i  w v2  v2  " 

c^  2 2 


rt  ct 


5 5:  S: 
COO 


c/3  *::: 

qj 

- NH  ® 

'iJ 

^3  ? P 

^ ^ ^ > 
« efl  ca  2 
C O ^ in 

rt 

fU 


2 45 

^ J?; 

- 

P ^ 

in  g 

.“J  O 
6 

U 6 
U 

-2  ?3 
”0 


13  -53 

4)  45 

45  45 

an 

45  45 

m in  C C 


43 

U 

cT  'p 

O 4) 
XJ  CJ  _45 


O O O o 


K K U 
-2  4: 


o £ 


be  3 C '.o:  45  45 


Ph  o 

u in 


be 

3 45 


c3cS3COO^C 


< < ;2  M W W f2 


a; 

S 

'in  ^ 
oa  S 

P-lrvP^P-lPHPHP-lP-(PHPlP-(  a»>^ 


33  cn  in  in 


45  45  45  45  45  45  45 

4J4'4;454545454545 


i 

di  ^ X 

Ps  2 2 

4)  2 

.■3  c/3  ^ 

> 45  6 

^ -c  w 


« Q £ 

2 c/3 


™ rt  45 
45  O iP 


W 2*  c/3 


vO  00  ^ <N 

30  CO  n 
’-'  VO  10  vO 
X)  00  30  00 


Ov  OuotJ-cTvcoOvOco 

VO  volrJCO(3^t^CM‘OT^ 

.-I  OiOCMOvCMt^vovO 

00  0000000000000000 


FEED  MIXTURES — (Continued) 


40 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Fiber  | 

paaiuBJEn^ 

punosj 

H 

< 

(g 

p33;uBaBn0 

puno^.j 

Protein 

p33;UBJBn0 

puno^ 

ojnjsiojY 

1 

Place  of 
Sampling 

^ o ^ 

■S  o ^ 

£ ? S 

B ^ ^ 
° •?  .S 
S S 

'O 

-o 

G 53  s 
S B ^ 
£ ^ S 

R ^ 

^ O w 
c/T  ^5 
^ cn  ^ 

.Sc 


>> 

^ c 
S 

s >. 

-^3  .S 

O p 
<u  g 
>+.<  O 
JH 

c 


>>  4h 
c G 

B £ 

.S  S 

s'  B 


O "73 

o 


Mh 

a ■«  o 

^ -a 


6 ctf  g ■£  rt  J2 

Ih  <u  .2  o 32 

£g«  s 

x>  c 


1 1 = 

O tfl 

^B 

— 

<^1  j_, 

S § 


bo  ' 


U) 


*3  t5  ° 

V c 

O ^ 

TO  •" 

0^  .-H  O 
.G  .'p  ^ 

3 B 

^ - 

C OJ  ^ 


so 

c ° 
c 

o a! 

u OJ 

bo  p 


rt 


-OX 
o w 

S c .2 

OJ  -4-* 

"3  & a 
■sl-= 


K5 


B S B 


rt  'O  t/T 

G <u  S' 

G 03  C 
G '.G 
rt  O TS 
IG  ii  'G 

<i2  B 'B 

^ O G 03 


rG  (U 

|s 


'G  u 

V 3 

<U  p 

'+-'  tj 

p <5 

(U  3 

bo  2 

£ 2 
G 2 
G si 


+0  TT 

■>  c 
> a 

03 

03  JO 

<u  bo 
'J  C 

O -G 

.s  e 

G <U 

c .ti 

■C  -G 

£ ^ 

G 

ho  „“ 

03  -H 

sp  O 


'3  oT 

rt  B bo 
<u  c 

^ S 2 
•-S  ."2 
B B 


B £ 


03 

o 
X t! 
o Pi 


C 1-.  'O 

3*^5 

03  >>  rt 

<13  Jb 


GO  'G  .Q  O 


^ M 

bo  B 


o o 
ON  c3 


m 


o S 
« < 
U (d 

<«  c 

3 

H Q 

£ 


o 

a 

G 

— 
> -G 
rt  43 

Q 


Gh 


£ 0/) 
rt 

o p 

>.  O 


jaquin.N^  uoi;b}S 


03  <33 

03  03 

2 

U .2 

o 

s ^ 


>. 

Ih 

03  ‘G 

rt  ^ 

^ C! 

r<  ~ 

bo 

s 


fO  ^ 


Bulletin  327 


41 


U-)  CM 
00  'O 


1-H  T-t 


sd 
ro  liO 

1-H 


r-H  VO 

00  On 


00  On  00  00 


VO  NO  O 

CM  ^ 

O 00  00 


O l-H 
On  CO 


o be 

bo  n 
c ^ 
pi 


1x1  o 


a " 


(fi 

C/) 

QJ 

<U 

if) 

c/3 

C/3 

r2 

Cj 

<u 

'o 

'o 

ta 

6 

V 

c/3 

c/3*'  ^ 

' 'T- 

1 

O 

B 5 

<u 

P 

; . h5  P 

(•^ 

-c 

, V 

•n 

a> 

."2 

1 ’ ^ 

<U 

I *1^ 

; u. 

a> 

CA  c 

0 

' 

u 

b'S 

(L> 

"C 

dJ 

4J 

1 ^ 

> u 

C 

0 

P 

d ^ 
^ & 

u 

>. 

u 

I *c3 

: o 

53 

cd  r£ 

P 

. 

u.  > 
a;  C 

-S 

dJ 

. > 
dJ 

i 2 

N ^ 

C3 

5 

d^ 

rt  0 

.s  ^ 

^ rt 

Ph  .S 

0 

u 

rt 

C 

Q 

a 

c 

V 

§ 

C 3 

3 

0 

u 

Oi 

a pq 

pq 

S flH 

a ;x, 

O 

C rt 
<u  p 

o a 

(i  (£l 


UO  00 

ro 

00  00 


o 

^s  m 
00  00 


ro  NO 
CM  »-H  00 

CO  CM  n- 

00  CO  00 


•^00  CM 

lO  1— < n- 

C\  tn  NO 

00  00  00 


42 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

1;;  ?!  "o  'P 


V o 

a s 


s.s 

‘rt 

t3  m 

S 

2 I 

• (D 

“ g 

« 'rt*'  M . 

^ <u  "P 
e P - 
g G +-•  w 

w Xl  G 
W T3 

Cn  <U  O r-H 
CIS  W ti 


42  ^ 


S .2  3 

U5  'O  O 

s “ 

42  c 


tn  S c« 

G a a 

S '2  -3 

u OJ  c 


G a , 


a P 

rt  O 
iri  (J 


o.  « 

S £ 

rt  a 
<"  8 
to 
C3 

- § 
£ o 

rt 

C/5  O 


CO  00 
03 

IS 

m"  Ji 
42  a 
p;  p 


^ i 


c o 


a tf 

oT 

T3  -a  G 

ii  g -3 

*3 

T5  -M  .a  S 
c 2 >- 
pj  o -a  ^ 

-G  ^ g 

§^:g  G 

O "y  -.n  3 


-S  e g 

g >,  G 

bO  G5  -3 
•»  CO 

n3  ^ 

0)  ?3  — - 
8 O -G 
»4H  C 

«CJ 

c v 
ii  O.  «J 

G .S*.£ 

’3)  ’«  £ 

a ^ ^ 
P to 

o 

o ^2  *Ji 

'S  ^ 
2 g;^ 

B o *co 

CO  *H 


^ r:2 
*c3  to 

Vo 


» *=" 


O c/2 


O 'G 


w -G  o TJ 
42  G G C 

O cu  TS  ra 


tt 

u 

pa 

pOOJUBJBlIQ 

15.00 

15.00 

13.00 

13.00 

13.00 

20.00 

20.00 

1 

15.00 

1 

|l5.00 

1 

|14.00 

14.00 

1 

12.00 

14.00 

puno.j 

1 

13.30 

15.53 

7.49 

14.29 

10.25 

21.17 

20.211 

14.69 

16.22 

8.421 

13.08] 

12.401 

14.95 

Fat  j 

poajuEJEnf) 

1.50 

1.50 

3.50 

; 

3.50 

1.70 

1.00 

l.OOl 

1.50 

2.00 

2.00 

^ 2.50 

1 2.50! 

1 

3.50| 

1 

punoj 

1 1 

1 

1 2.82' 

1 2.851 

1 2.07' 

1 ’ 

1 

j 3.65 
2.85] 

1.17 

0.85 

2.53 

1 1.82 

1 

1 5.04 

1 

i 3.43 

4.75 

5.60 

Protein 

p33;uEj:cn9 

9.00 

9.00 

13.50 

|13.50 

9.30 

8.00 

8.00 

1 8.00 
I 

I 8.00 

1 

8.00 

12.00 

10.00 

16.501 

punoj 

10.63 

11.81 

12.50' 

12.31 

8.931 

! i 

|11.94i 

10.66] 

1 

|11.19 

1 

9.83] 

I 

|11.13 

1 1 

14.25] 

11.56] 

16.44 

9jn;sioj/\[ 

0(X)t^  00— hOOi/^OSt-(C7sO  som 

m-|-cvi  tv..-HOsOOOO.-HO\  sooo 

-tooo  ooiocsj^ossgcios  c5o6 

Place  of 
Sampling 

Jersey  City  .... 

Jersey  City  .... 
Columbus  

Alloway  

Cranbury  

Quinton  

Camden  

Alloway  

Ridgewood  .... 

Woodstown  .... 

Trenton  

Villa  Park  

Salem  ] 

« Q 
G 

^ Q 

V S 


o 

• V 

4i 

rt  a 
c 

T rt 
C 
<u 


J3({iun\  UOIlEJg 


3 

Ph  _ 
C g 
2 CU 

to 

pi! 


^3  43 

^ 2 
Ph  ^ 


G 

rt 

^ c 


c/1  ^>-1 

cn  • 
1/1  ^ 

frt  <-• 


O £ 3*  Gh 


=<i  CO 


Ph  O 


3 3 
Ph  P, 


- I 

o ^ 

41 

H 


^1 
A ^ 


Ph 

6 ’2 
<u  3f 

.£  CO 
rt  ^ 
bfl  rt 
p 41 

CO  2 


ro  00 
00  Os 
OS  00 
00  00 


^ r-H  CO 


> 


Bulletin  327 


43 


TJ  rt  O 

•2  <" 

^ S o ^ 

5 I « c 

6 5 

2 -i  - i 

1 ^ a o 

2 'cn  " T3 

^ « s I 

s g ” I 

o i ^ 

rt  ^ S 1> 

2 s O « 

S g 

"S  .S 

S « P 2 

'+-!  >4-1  C O 


in  C 

c 2: 

O t3 
tJ  T3 

8 s 
o S 


c “ 
iJ  3 
^ 2 
bo  a 


^ s 

0)  £ 


•S| 

a)  ^ 

& ’5' 
_. 

^ s 

t)  c 


c3 

>>  „ 
G tn 

s I 


^ cfl  -O  'O  CO 
CO  f3 

^ ^ 


•3 

CO 

^ d 

X ^•' 

« rt 

3 g 
h 


V U 

•S  ^ >*4 

? « o 

(U  , 

. S « 

S w P. 


i;  T3  T3 
rt  C C 

g 2 fS 

o 

U.  U) 

bo  'U 

_•>  ^ tn 


^ s e 


C a S 
a 2 


g o c 


j-* 

Oj  H rt 
CO  OD  CO 


QJ 

S ^ 


J3  V 

o 


c m 

11 

up 


O to 

u .S 


™ p 
o P 


(U  p 


flH  > . - 


"i  t+4  ~ C 

M < § 8 

. ^ ^ 

P O Ct3 

S:  o 2d 

H is  < 

CO 


o1  I 

G ^ E 


c/T  ffi 

2 

rt  a 
.«  o 

a H 

^ a 


CO 

o 


44 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


1 Fiber  | 

p93}UHJBn0 

punoj 

i Fat 

paa^ueaenQ 

punoj; 

Protein 

p33;UBJBn0 

puno^ 

3anisioj\[  1 

Place  of 
Sampling 

^ (/3  ^ 

si  rt 


tT  £ 

S s 

T3  c/T  " . 

(U  bo  -o 

(U  C (U 
u)  (u 

lit 


Oi 

i 3 


8 2’^ 

y T3 


S S • S 

^ 

^ . 5^  6 

>>  U)  c 
bo  •«■  -o 
G ^ C 
c :3 

^ g 

“j  p 2 


. S 

42  ^ -PI 

!lj  2 C 

O ^ Cfl 

U 


^ 'O  P jn 

2 “ 
® = = S 

rt  p y 

V-t 

S o ^ 

8^0^ 


<4H  C 

u 

C O 


<u 

V . 

<+H  C 
rt 

G i 

y 

G rt 

'bo  ^ 

G 

O 

C ^ 
1 1 


U ^ 


r-t  03 
r2  ^ 

b£i 


VO  VO 

oq 


0\  \fi 

oa  fo 
oi  io 


<N  r-* 

00  00 


VO  ro 
tt  on 

^ -f 


00  00 
On  VO 


00  to  ^ 
00  <M  On 
ON  t<  NO 


^ is 


« ps; 


t3  bo 


jaqiunx  uopEJS 


G y .G 
'bO  S 

2f  O 

• " (A  P P 

S -y  P _ 

(U  T3 

cJS  y ^ 
u rt  y p 

'H  ^ ^ 


<v  .i: 

^ ^ 


. y > 


P 

c/3  ^ rv  ^ 

g«  g go  §■ 

S jjSo^o 


o 

QJ  X3  ^ T3 

<y  a; 

^ w od  0/ 

= <A  ^ 

§ '8  ^ 

in 


(U  Z 


m 


_ y 

y — -- 

X 

G 

O 


P P P 


G -G 

^ y 

rH  y 

. P 
bo 

t-  'P 

• X 

(A  " 

O 

H 


S 

« -s  P P 

C i? 

2 O J 

‘v-  - <L> 

O ^ ^ X 
K 


00  00 
00  00 


r-H  1-H  On 


^ (U 
« tl 


^ Q 


^ a 


3 S 

u 

o 

-a  "TS 
(u  r <u 
<L>  o X 

O S 


>. 

u 

D •« 

T3  C 

I < 


>u  ^ 

fa  > 


«2  U 


Jr;  « 1) 
a;  ^ vH  (u 

■S  . ^ fa 


bo  X 

•S§ 

c 


O . .. 

-rt  o o bo 

^ ■B'Z 

^ ^ S 2 fa 

h2  t C .i 

K ..J  j5  rt  O c^ 

^ K -n  o 

Hot; 

. -C 

fa  H ffi 


bO 


V hr-l 

<o  fa  t3 

ffi  ^ fa 
6 
a; 

0‘ 


TO 

>. 


CL)  "3  “J 

o g 

- fa  fa 

c y 

o bo  ^ 
c/}  3 K 

o<j  W jJ' 
C 


_C 

■ ”3  fa  "O 


■-  H y w ^ a; 

vw  c ^ ^ _r>  ^ 

g TOtjo-^  S 'O 

!ti  3 3 p 33  o "3 

gK 

fa  o u iri  :3 
. ffi  J?0  h S fa  S 


fa  o 

- aj 


W o 

E 

fa 


ON 


46 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


cn 

3 '2 

o c C8 
3 Cl 

a o c 

in  Ui  C 

be 


cn 

• S C 

03  V 

W)  3 

•c  ^ 

-3  o 


U)  TD 
G 

O .<u 


G 
~ C 

TJ  OS 


G rt 

Cl 

o ^ 


^ O 
G OT 


-o  TS 

G H 

C!  -G 


Cl  rt 
^ C 

p s 


Cl  " 
^ Cl 


-G  S ^ 


c/T  P 

c 2 


^ rt 

« ^ 43 

^'‘  O . "G 


<U  *T3) 

B B 


< CJ 


'S'2 

Cl  G 


paaiUKJBnQ 


«^o6 


punoj 


po9iuB.iBn;j 


pUllO_.J 


p994UUJKUp) 


punoj 

ajiHsioiY 


fa  o 

o z 


jjqiunx  uouBjg 


O 

to  \0 


° £ 
5 o 


2; 

-G  'S 

l-i  Cl 

o 

G) 

Cl  ^ 

^ 'n 


o 

£ c 


£'^c:3 
cq  03 

S|| 

I < ^ 

t2 


O TG 


be 


U 


d c 
12;  - 

3 


^ Cl 
G 
O 


■n  rt  ^ 


. ^ 'S 


o 

GG  l4  -^3  ^ 
^ o 


G 

G 

2:; 

Cl 


T3  G -a 

Cl  o Cl  -rt 

V CO  Cl  g 

Ph  o 

^ Cl  II  ^ 

£ £ ^ 


t3  U 

O 

o C<J 
£, 

^ "C 
- »».  Cl 
Cl 
'rt 

Q , 

Cl  3 


2; 


►3  E 2:  ^ 

P rt  .y 

^ ^ C-i 

^ oj  C' 

-o  ^ . 


. C 


bo 

•S 

4> 

*0  5 

ro  C 

a "S 

a> 

-■->  (/} 

c 

^ £ 

^ o 


C!  C 

S O 

o £ 

— U O 


<u  c 

a 

c 

oi  <u 

^ I 

bo 


a S) 


•s 


o 

cT  ^ 


^ xt 

I ^ 

£ 'o 

^ bO  ^ 
ca  !« 
Si  C rt 


ca  c 

S s 

^ X) 
CT3  +J 
03 

3 ^ 

'rt  ^ 

'O 

rt 

ca  o 

£ 
a o 

C -G 


•-  o 
•73 

S 


[bulletin  327 


i3  S 

T3  — 

‘s 


^ . 

-S  o 


a 

c3  o; 

a a 


c « 
£ >. 
3 £ 
Sa 


« ^“'2  «r 

<u  r S £ 

^ rt  la 


a V. 


-73  ^ 
_r 


t3 
C ^ 
ca  bo 

i!  C 
ca  u 
tn  o 


G 

£ ^ 
3 ^ 


:£e 


o 

S ca 


?5 


CO 


:£  ^ 

ca 


O ^ 


C '73 

•2  <U 

S,  “ s 

I 6 

2 ? C 
<u  u ^ 
U 


CO  ^ 

bo  _ 

•I  « 

g- 

QJ  (U 


a § 

c 

u 


CM 


^ n 


(M  ^ ^ 


O O CT' 


ji  ^ 


• “ ^ 
c 


c 

<U  'C 


^•5 

. ci 

H 

ca 

oa  ^ 

J 


2 ^ 

o oa 


n -o 


'*H  .2  « o 

< ^ ^ s 


u u 


ca 

t3  n 


o 

8 u 


c/2  cii 

CO  ;_ 

^ ii 


-73  § 

Ji  c/2 


■73 

<u 

l-P 

^ CO 
(U 

^ i 
£ 
o 

c"  S 

o ^ 
'73  c/2  <J 


3 3 bo-^  £ -n 

<U  S (L)  ^ (U 

a 2 2-2  2 B 

WH-  ^ § o < 

^ 


c/2  o 

<U  C 
U a 


n35  n3 

(U  <y 
c;  (U 

V >. 
^ U 

O 03 


ca 

fa 

ffi  Q 

•73 

<D 

U 

>. 

cfl  ifi 

V ^ 

(/}  ffi 

V 

fa 

d 

ca 

Q 

(Ji  (Ji 

OJ  ^ 

>> 

m 

'o  'o 

"ca 

<yi 

"rt 

O 

00 

•o 

GC 


CM 

CO 


00 


00 


<M 

oc 


48 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


punoj 


p33;uBjBn0 


punoj 


p33;uBJHn0 


punoj[ 


3an;sioj/\[ 


c « 
2 o 
!= 


be  p 


0!  P 

O 

-a 

c"  ^ 

8 - 

o 

'u  C 

2 S 

o o 

« rt 

< < 


■O  'O 

c c 

nj  nj 


H B 


rt  w 

B 

- o 

"rt  ^ 

(jj  Tj 

P O 


o „ 

N OS 
rt  ^ 
C3  H 


° 

./•  >> 


P s 

2 B 

p y 


2l  o 

« s 


2 S 

M P 


'p  ^ 
P <LI  P 


PP  P (U  - 

•i:  pp  ^ c 

X)  cfi  ir 


o o o 
o o o 
oj  lo  o 


o 00 

0\  '£>  m 
as  k6  1-^ 


rn  Os 


O O uo 
rH  ro 


O O O O 
O O O uo 


^ VO  lO  <M 
SO  Os  \0  X) 
C'j  1-5  oi  lo 


O O CM  O 


M-  ON  Ch  i-H 
Tf  O ro 

o o t-5  o 


lO  CM 
NO  CM  ■N  ^ 

r-5  ^ 00 


O CM  C7s  NO 
NO  NO  ON 


jaquin^  uoiiBig 


"d  T)  'O 

B B B 


K K 
>1  >.  P«:  -x 


•„  c3  03 


<v  o 

12;  ^ 


^ TP  y TP 
. <u  tp  o 
^ y (u 
Pp  y 

~ U3 

C o (u 
y (fl  o — ■ 
B K 2 
B 2 « 

cfl  K 03  u 

U ^ 25  ^ 


S nB  < 4: 

V < 

? in  c/) 
O in  ^ i/> 

ly^  V P V 

S o s 

>.  CP  U Oh 
v: 


u 

y x) 

y ^ 


-d  D 


-5  y P<!' 


rt 

-d  Ph 


CJ  y 

-P  TP 

d) 

P 

c2  5 


12  Ph 

^ 2 i S-3 

=<S  o 2 O 

o E * O 


2 • - 


> 

-O 


lO  aj 


o<i 


2 2 


B .J5i  in  tfl 
B W K- 


2 ^ 

I P ^ 

1 ;s|  S 

K 

oT  1 O ^ 
ii  2 

2 03  / Q 

g-w  § ^ 

^ I-  ro 

w c m 

..•0^0 


JP  TP 

H J5u 

^'8  ^ 
2 .2  H 


p"' 

O 

- * p; 


B 2 
nS  C 


y P n 

y y o 
2 Q u 


E . E' 


O 1-c  ^ 
00  o o 
00  00  00 


ro  -r  CP\  o 

NO  NO  NO  NO 


00  00  00  00 


Bulletin  327 


49 


O lO 


^ V 
^ 6 


•w  o 

rt  c 

<u  c 

-C  ^ 

^s 

fS  c5 


o 

u o 


--  -d  rt  -Q 

'o  ~ ^ 

'S  o 

(u  a c 

’-w  rt  „ 

c iJ  'd  S 

^ ^ s g 
'H 

d -n  ^ § 
^ 2 
u o 


O T3  t« 
- rt 


P s 


^ o 


(Nl  O 

oj 


r-H  O 

o oa 


__l 


o 00 

o\ 


O 


B B 

o o 
CO  CO 


^ -d 


12;  XI 
dJ 


d i5 

O 


O P 


^ (ii 

S 'd 
« « 
> X 


Ph  ^ 

® 2 ? c 

»o'2i- 

>-  O o 

HI  H-l  ^ 


I ^ ^ c 
1)  -Si  <U  ^ 
w C/)  « o 

s 

W s S5  c 

03  ^ § 2 

• 0^  ^ 

° ^ T3 

- 


C 


« (N  c 

- ° cl 

^ ^ r-, 


B 


o Pa 


o .d 

ii  > 


S 13  « 


P }-.  W 

.2  -S  :2  "S  ^ 

> .2  > .><  ^ 

cn 


n3 

V 

^ ^ V 

t;  2 ^ 


« 

S 


.2;  ^ CO  W 


oj  d (j 

|<1 


Cfl  (/3 


Q > 


li9. 


> o 


dj 


U->  1— I 


VO  VO 
CO  00 


m % 

W d 

. ^ § 
^ d <« 
03  ^ 

^ ^ 

^ 03  ^ 

d c3 

^ T3  ^ 

P: 


2 ■“  !£ 


Jj  (U  <U  (U 

o I t 
d c«: 
c § c 3 


t3  I 


5 o 


8 X, 
8 
- tp 
o „ 
U -g 

be  2 
C u 
id  CO 

d c, 

o 

^ H 


POULTRY  FOODS~( Continued) 


50 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


puno-j 


S (U 


C4  <J 

C rt 
rt 

TS  - 


O 3 


^ C 


I'g  S 

-Wo 


a .b 


e rt  rt 

8 • c Is 
u bo  « ^ 

S c 

^ N c 


bran, 

1,  oat 

F 1% 

peas, 

S 2 

2 8 

c 

o ^ 

x^ 

l-l 

o 

w"  rt 

^ CS 

o 

bO 

C (/i 

tJ  73  c 

C ^ CS 

8^  a 

—T  U 

Kaffir 

•33  to 
T3  0 
TJ  33 

E ^ 

tn  ^ ^ 

^ O (/) 

-w- 

Ts  a 

pa? 


d 

“ a 
6 


o 5 


g rt 

^ W Is 


2 M I s 

^ 4-r  ^ 

C*  g S 3 

s a ^ ^ 

u > 


.r  ^ 

C3  ^ 

a;  o 


2 

^ Is 
^ O 


w ^ ^ 

si  I 

1)  V) 

M C X} 

SCO) 

°-:5  e 

C 73  « 


cS  cS 
cS  O 

^ 2 "O 


ifi  w 
t'J  . 

w fcS 
c W 


o V 


o a be 

o ‘-'  0 

'O  Is  ^ 

C 0)  t:)  4.: 

§1  el 

o 


& s 
^ ’S) 

£ C 

“ 8 

§ « 

O ^ 


C o 
U U 


(£  8 

(S  «> 

W u 

V 

£ t 

. °1 

1h  T3  tn 

^ g £ 
u 


O OJ 

IT)  LO 

o5 


p99JUBJBn0 

punoj 


p^ajuBJRny 


punoj 


o o 
cvj 


XO  O 
rvj  ro 


O Cvj 
ro  y-i 


y—i 


^ 00 
ON  00 


^ og  ro 


9jn;sioj^\[ 


c c 

c ^ 

^ o o 

O t/) 

^ (U  <y 


a 

§-ti 
d ^ 

M O 

■£=1 
O t3 
<U 

Ph  w 


JO 

s 

c < 


£U  Pj 


O 


r x^ 
o ‘IJ 

•S  S' 

I o 

Ph 

(fl 

EQ 

cS 


O 

. o 

5 

. I 

O so 
bo  4^ 

rt  W 

d w 
S t 

a1 

"S  bo 

O M 

c W 

(U 

■r)  ^ 

CQ  ‘rt 

” Q 


O 


d ^ 

>,  3 
H Pq  Ph 


o o rt 


Ph  U "3 
^ J3  u 
be-  U c/) 
V>  {/) 

'o  ‘o 
3 3 
O'  O' 

_ o o 
p « ^ ^ 

tt 

3 

CQ 


w 

o 


(/) 

c 

+r 

3 

'<n  ^ 

o 

bo  Q 3 

.S 

« ’rt 

’d 

o 

d rb 
U 

CS 

bo  £ 

u 

c/2 

H 3 

? 

bo 

jaqiun^  uoijbjs 


tH.  \r> 
—I  CM 

00  00 


Bulletin  327 


51 


W ’V 


"Td  o 


o _c 

M b£ 

o c 
C T 


1.^ 


V T3 

-?  C 

f rt 


o h ^ « 


S o 
- 

i/>  Td 

be  <u 

.S  U5 
’c  ^ 

V r:: 

^ 


n -SS 

I S S 


. OJ 
rt  S 


- S "rt  ~ 


ca  j- 
OJ  Xl 

P 


*^''  ~0 


"S  -5  O 


■H  S 

^ £ 

1^ 

•-  aj 


_r  a; 

?!  ^ 
<u  o 

e 


bo  ^ 


a!  t3  la 

<n  nd 


s £ 


^ !£ 
rt 

*r  ^ 


ca  o 


d 

rt 


V o 

J3  O 
Td 


"O  XI  ^ 


<U  cfl 


3 £ 5 


■"s. 

if 

u 


g'S 

rt  u ^ 

^ biD  </5 


rt  ^ 


x:  bo 

> 


nj 

4)  . 

X3  ’Td 


S ^ 

o 

Td  'X! 
(U  C 

x<  P 

O (« 


« -g 

rt  i: 

oT  ^ 
.^i 

OJ  o 
£ . 
° ^ 


S s£ 

4) 

•s 

? -£ 
'c 

G 4J 


5 'o 


^ 3 

bo 

4) 

° £ § 

I 8 £ 

bo 


I? 


— Td  p 
P 4j  d: 

C Si  -P 

cfl  2 Td 


I W 


TO  c 

^ p 

£ R 


41  > 

P ^ 
03  Td 


^ £ £ qH  &. 


4»  tn  ■ 

6 ^ 


p x: 

2 « 

-p  ^ 
. p « 
P ^ 


8 B 

.r  6 


p: 


S pL, 


h 

*5 

” O Td 

“d  43 

w •“  '4' 

O LLi 

. 2 u 


H ° 2 

'rt  P u 

o'-g^ 
R 5 ^ 

p 

Cm  -2  O 


CA) 


03 

■p 

3 8 

OJ  tp 
'O 


>.  § 

o „ 

jf  .2 

P CJ 
3 41 

^ m 


tn  ^ 
>.  p 


41  Ll) 

d-’ 


o J2 

II 

u 

4)  bo 
Ph  c 

“ rt 

P hJ 


P O 
03 

hC  ° 

= ! 

2 -P 

P 43 


I’OULTRV  FOODS — ( Continued) 


52 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


paaiuBJEtiQ 


punoj[ 


U5  ^ 

3-S 

^ c -o 

<U  rt  4i 
>,  CJ  w 
^ =" 
!- 

rt  « 

OJ  > 

XI  o 

S:  £ qs 


i"? 

bo  3 


</)  <£2  to 

I M ° 

^ ^ s 


M S "rt 


3 rt 


c H 

^ o 
tiO  ^ 


Ol 

. 'd  bo 

. c c 

rt  x; 

t3  'q 
oj  .ii 


. „ l>  o 

X!  O C X U 


rt  ^ 


<l) 

5 ^ 

o - O 
3 C X 

^ o S 

~ O s 

c 

O T! 


t-  O 

xl  2 ? 

U 


-j-  c 


x) 

s § 

-c  2 

& be 


C O, 

3 -g  X 
^ 

-d  ^ 


£ S 
-■''“  S 


^ X 


X rt 


*3  X-  TS 
C rt  C 
d « rt 

O S _ 
bo  ^ 

™ oJ  <u 

$H  rv  C 

3 .. 


rt  C 

B ! 


2 E 

3 

'bO-'g 

2 x) 
h <u 
o <u 

O (O 

_C 

13 

rt 

3 iin 

t-  rt 

O 


(U  d 


3 1) 

X X 
> 


'd  X3 

a 3 

3 3 
O O 


8| 

d 


X 

. 3 

(n  X 

d 

b> 

a c 


e 

s'  d 


"d  ‘5 

i)  c 

S 


<u  bo 

a 


C ;h 

I d o 

d ^ 


s ^ 

i; 

X -T3 
lU 

tS  X 
d 


d 

<u  X 

3 


paaijuyjBuy 


puno_^ 


paaiUBaeri^ 


puno^ 

3jn;sioj\[ 


:5  § 


U U 

H p 

< I 

p 

z 

< 

S 


d 

d •- 

oo 

LO 

il 

e £ 

— w 

w t: 

> c 

-*  o 

3^ 


4-> 

• 

'n 

o 

c 

X 

o 

'll 

d 

! d 

1 

to 

1 

d 

^ d 

i S 

C/2 

n3 

<v 

• fli 

O lx 

d 

m fi 
3 B 
pq  « 


O 


"S  — 

hH  'S 

Uh  « 
o -d 
bo  w 

j 


o;  ^ V 

3 6 .£P 

■r;  U Ph 
h-l 


rj 

c 

3 

03 

c 

3 "d 

O 

X 

C 

.-O 

O 

O 

C/^ 

o 

X! 

s s 

X ^ 

s 

s 

S 

o 

s 

S W 

(LI 

V 

(LI 

(U 

3 

p 

c3 

c 

3 =<S 

5 

s 

s 

< 

s 

5 d 

(LI 

J9qiun>j  uoj;h4S 


rl  C\J 

O VO 

VO  CO 


Bulletin  327 


r>.') 


yr.  •— 


^ - i! 


.£  O 


. 6 .£ 

^3  - O 03 

(U  03  ^ u 
(U  (U  be 
QJ 

g sll 


s ° 

i)  -o 

J3  D 

II 

:3  -- 


be 


^ C be  a; 


o ^ a. 


a 

2 03  03 

O C W 

(/)  o3 


^ "Ta  'L) 

•£  “ £ 

^ c 

- 8 n 

o 

'C  03  03 

03  C 


-3  03 
>03-0 

" c 


- ^ 


^ « 
» ’O 


!/3  •—  ^ 

■£  rt 


ff  ” s I 

Slll 

* ^ c 
^1  8-^ 
e 03 

F 03  y E 

o S ^ 
U U 


O O 
u 

C !« 
n to 
O C 

be  ^ 
„ "3 
"rt  '£ 


03  - 

03  C 
03  OS 


e ^ -M 


^ ^ = 
o ^ ' 


£ £• 
O 3 
C. 

03 

OS  03 

' cu 

03  S 


» 03 
C C 


S £ 

"F 


03 

is  6 


r"  'S  ^ — 


^ 03  tf  ^3  V 


^ 6 


^ u ^ 
u ^ o 


p ^ ^ 


o 

w C 

03  o 
03  03 

03  U 
03  OC 

u 

O 


^ ^ O 


:3V 


T . 

1)  03 

-u  S t 
11  3 
^ W cS 


•t; 

I *1 

03  “ 

03 

03  C 
.2  ^ 
j3  rt  03 
O 


"8  ?: 

03  be 


.£  u 

c 


6 

u 

io 


G 03 

K H 


c/2  CJ  -5 

^1  o 

£ S .£ 

n <;  E 

03  E 

1-  _v  O 

U « Q 

‘sS 


13  u 


° . S ^ ^ M 

9 • - o ^ ^ 


CT3 


;3  pH 


o 

rt 

Ph  , J 


U-) 

GO 


POULTRY  FOODS — (Continued) 


54 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


OS 

u 

p33;UBJBn£) 

n 

fa 

punoj; 

H 

poa^uBJBn^  1 

fa 

pUUOj[ 

Z 

p33;UBJBnr)  | 

o 

fa 

1 

puuoj 

1^0 
o ^-T 

03  ^ 

<U  C W 

I S ^ 

I ^ "3 

" N 

S 'rt  s 

^ s -s 

^ o ^ 

£ 1 £ 
o ^ o 
o £ o 

t3  o XJ 

O O^; 

O Uh  o I 

rt  <j3  oj  I 

CJ  u 


^ VI 

o3  be 
<0 

c :« 

O 'O 

rO  -3 


llil 

rt  G - C 

O 03  g Vh 
h § P , 


^ e 

bo 


• i!  « 

^ o 

rt  o o 


1-.  ^ 


3 55  . G ^ 


„ 3 
C P- 

L<  , ^ 

P ^ 


£ S 

o ,5 
o W 


j:: 

Td  ^ T3 

O <J 

^ u ^ 

0 3 0 

03  ^ 03 


o3 

S 


^ 'U 

a -G 

03  ^ 


S .P  > 


^ ^ T3 
u C 

2 G *:• 


g 03 
£ o o 

- ^ ^ 
S G 


o ^ 

si  'P* 


03  GJ 


C 

^ P 
5 X! 


S p P-  rt  ^- 


^ G 

,3  tn 
rt  03 


03  ^ 

o ^ 


o n — 

o .«  S 
o c 3 
o 'o 
G "G 
a . o 

,5  ”«  +r 

g 03 

» G cn 


03 

f 

111 

> 


6 'rt 

-O  ? 

B — 

o 'a 


.3  O 

a a 


3Jn;sioj\; 


u H-: 
to  c. 
< •: 


Jdqum\^  uojjB}^ 


« 3= 

r ^ 

c3 

^ o 

03  ^ 
1-. 

oS  03 


>H 

03  i- 
(U  3 

J X 

|(3§ 

'6  r°  O 

CJ  K 
V,  W) 

i!  5?S 

c«  3i 

^ •'2  <u 

w c/3  .« 

? 

m afc 


o 


be 

.£  y Q ^ 
a - 'p 

is!  C 6 i:i 
s:  U « 
0 0,^0 
rt  ^ c/3 

^ rt 

t/2  _ o g 
>>  o 


03 

43  O 

•n  « 


.-I  t» 


Bulletin  327 


56 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


o P 


oj  -C 


w O 

" hi 

2 -o  ^ 
bC  c c 

rt  rr? 


^ c C 
^ o O 


- g o 

C . 

O rt  -TI! 


— t/3 

S ° T3 

^ C 


O 

C o 

^ , u (j 
O rt  ^ -H 


g ^ 
” 03 

C -C 


73  <U 

c"  rt  "i 


° 5 ^ 

4J  -CJ  1-, 

§ h£ 

- i;  03  x) 

!"  bo  C 

c3 

P _r  , 

03  C 'TD 

-C  w ;-  1) 

T3  P O <U 

U t/) 

s « ^ ^ 

4-  ^ W « 

03  <5  Ji!  P 

<U  ^ O O 

^ rt  P bC 

> 


O MS 

E S 

^ 2 ^ 


^ i;  p c«  3 

. j;  ii  o 

bo  £ & i=« 

s o 

- ^ C « 

C (Li 


"O 


'C  OS 


— 'bo  S 


U 


Fiber  I 

p331UEJBn£) 

12.63 

5.00 

7.00 

1 5.00 

[10.00 

1 6.00 

1 2.25 

1 8.00 

4.00 

10.00 

4.00 

1 5.65 

1 

1 8.25 

1 

' puno.j 

7.13 

1.99 

8.16 

2.34' 

1 

4.37' 

1 

1 6.55' 

1 

1.81 

3.29 

2.19 

7.83 

1 2.49 

1 6.28 

1 

7.46 

1 

iVJ 

: pooiuBJEnQ 

1 

5.06 

1 3.00 

1 3.00 

1 

3.00 

3.00 

3.50 

3.50 

5.00 

3.00 

5.00 

2.50 

5.70 

4.04 

1 

punoj 

5.42 

1 

2.82 

4.00' 

3.86 

4.39 

4.09^ 

2.54 

5.01 

1 

3.76 

5.46| 

2.79 

5.52 

4.35 

1 

19.38 

12.00 

9.00 

7.00 

10.00 

12.00 

9.94 

16.00 

9.00 

14.00 

9.00 

23.00 

13.38 

1 

Protein  | 

poaiuEJBnQ 

23.88 

10.31 

11.94 

10.75 

12.75 

14.69 

9.94 

17.88 

10.44 

^16.75 

10.81 

21.56 

11.94| 

punoj 

vobOtoONLO'-'OsO  r-it^vo  <M 

3jnisxo]A: 

.-HOO(Mk04i-t^rOO  rOOOkO  bN  rrt 

O.ScO'-HoU.-^Ok  00\^  O 00 

f 

Place  of 

Sampling 

i 

Hightstown  .... 

Paterson  

Paterson  

Hackettstown  . . 

Hackettstown  . . 

Merchantville  ..' 

i 

Elizabeth  

t 

Flemington  .... 

, Flemington  .... 

. Bloomfield  .... 

, Bloomfield  .... 

. Ridgewood  .... 

. W.  Collingswood 

«} 


05  < 

Id  Id 
03  Q 
P ^ 


-rH  U3  03 
-H  03  U 

.i-S  b> 

a b| 

JU  Q u 
& 


J=  'P 
< X 


p 

,C  O 'P 

i:  (u 

rt  <'>  <U 

^ «j  ” 

r4 

2 
„ o 

S .'Ol 

w >. 


^ hJ 
>> 


c2  £ m 


<4  S C 
1»  03 

.'2  £ 
>.  'S  <u 

2 M :2 

Oi  lU 

CQ  ^ m 


'O 

4-i  dJ 
«j  dj 
-03  ^ 
03  ^ 

■iP  P 


C 'O 

QJ  <LI 

pq  .2 


c '2 
2 « 
bO  PS 
P 

■P  M 
P P 

p ■>> 

pH  03 
. .-1 
'p  _ 


s' 

’”'  T!  2 
°P^ 

^ 5 .p 

O tn 

’P  P 
(u  pq 

a;  ^ 

2 

2 5 J 

c)}  S 


-o  « 


« 2 
o 

a 


jaquiriNj  uoijEis 


o 

o 

& 

in 

bo 

P 

P3  TJ 
”0  2 
u 

^ 'S 

> ^ 

c"  >» 
o i: 
c/}  Q 


Bulletin  327 


57 


<u  « 


O o .ti  o <« 

3 >-■ 

-a  bfl  T3  h 

4)  <U  " 

^ -73  ^ ^ 

C o c o o 

rt  2 rt  2 « 

U U 


O 3 
T3  M 

O C 


U C ^ ^ 
V rt  ^ 

u U ^ ^ 
aj  5 q 
u Td 

“sis 

s C s 8 

•g  o ~ 

^ o 


„ ^ s 

I S£  ^ 2 

+j  <L)  ^ 

g s 

^ ^ 13 


& 

Is 

-3  ii 

rt  rt 
J2 

a ^ 

6 rt 

(D 


^ cj  n 


s _ 

c^ 

C <u 

S 


^ V 
q (U 


^•'  '^  -d 

*5  "i 
W S 


2 

c Ji 

6^0 


v Jj 


^ S 

cc 


O <" 


be  tn 
C 


Td 
4-.  C 
rt  3 
<U  O 

I ^13 

- c 

— hft  q 


s S 

^ 'd  r^  <U 


3 C 
d (U 

o W 


<u  p; 


- ^-T 


^ 2 


u 


•Td 

§ e ^ n 

u u 


0^0 


8 2 . 
^5  -4-2 

> •r  ^ ^ 

C V-»  ^ <L) 

o tfl  W 

4-7  ^ •'  ^ 

^ ^ td  q:3 

|l|  s 

> (/i  tf) 

s'  tT  s“  '2 

t-i  qj  r c 

O (U  o ^ 


Yx  <u  ^ o 
y o o ih 

2 CC  rj  tc 


<->  xj  i-i 

u u ^ u 


£ I 

be 

-4 

a I « 

C S c/) 
;c  ^ bo 
:§  o ;£ 

2 a ^ 

43  £ M 

o 'Ll 

2 43 

g-^. 

8 ?:!  13 
43  •“  2 

^ e 

S 8 c 

43  S J- 

^ U 


o\ 


O <M 

<N  fO 

d-  o3 


00  00 
00  IT) 

uo  ds 


^ T-l  O 


(N  O VO 

.4  r-J  0\ 


fa 


bo  • 

•Su’^ 

7"!  O 

ii  oa  fa 


sou 

o 5 

0)  ^ o; 
2 

fa  a fa 


fa  a 
c 

C3 


"I 

c/5 


.2  Iz; 


fa  CO  S 

3 


1 

O ^ 

_ =a 

« X 
X o X 
‘ 


u 


o O 

rrt 

w x) 

N <U  S 
fa  X .2 

(U 

q *n 

cd  (U  <u  r_5 

c5  s s 

O CJ 


C.S 
fa  fa 


3 C 
cd  'TS 
Vh  u 

u u 


00  On 
03  03 
0\  ON 
00  00 


58 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


p33JUBJBn0 


puno^ 


paaiuBJBriQ 


punoj 


paajuBJBn^ 


puno.j 

3jn;sio]\' 


(K  O 

o z 


u u 

K 


aaqiunx  uoijbis 


aj  c ::::; 

D,  o 

-o  ‘-■ 

S .’H 

OJ  EJ 
V-  C rt 

bo  <u 

Is" 

x:  rt 

- ’S  ^ ^ 

j (U  - 


O 


^ 'S 
3 KV  ^ 

in  M w 

•K  o 

>>  ^3  in 

^ C 

13  § § 

"I  ^ " 

V ^ ^ 

I S 1 

? e 

0 ^ 

1 s-| 

u 


•S 


<u  X 
|2  & 


CO  "♦-» 

bo  nj 
C 33  Ji 
33  o -r 
T3  P 
-13  ^ 

's  -i  = 

S 

(U  W n! 

<3  33  0!  U 

o £ '«  'S 

32  g <u 

: « I 

rt  1^5  <U  "cS 
(U  M u (U 

S o £ 

-O  tn 

•g  g •n 

S 3 H <u 
p.  O 3 QJ 
u r CO 

£ bo  S3 


c3  f-  O 
(U  C O 

c g 

p . ^ 


S£  S) 

ci3  C 

W -P 


6 rt 

(U 


rt  d 


C 33 

S £ 


s£  -n 

a ^ 
M 

C 

(U 

"S  -3 

■s  ^ 


£ c 


^ O • 

s 


o £ bo 


^ S t C3 

Ip 

">  bO  G - 

U ^ 

CO  w o N3 
bo  C u 

•So  p 

— o t3  C 
'P  <u  A 
3 -73  Ail  ^ 

B rt  2 E 

U 


JJ  Cl! 

CA  a; 
33 

§ ^ 

<U 

h,  G 


E 

'p  ^ 
P G 


O 33  P 


- I 


^■s 

« <i> 

S3  ^ 

O t 

T3  O 
O ic 


^ T3 
<1  O 
^ O 


3 .£ 


u 33  O 

o JS  ^ 


u -P  A O 
u <U  33 

^ Z >.  33  C. 

< P,  >'P) 


C 3 o 

•B  5 ^ 


O S 


Tl  Al 

- bO 

"P 


J3  "P  ‘C 

w 


. c/2 

CA 


o o — 

O O CO 

00  00  '-' 


Bulletin  327 


59 


■s  s 


U5 

73  bD 
C C 
3 3: 
O 

M 


u cC 

-3-g 

OJ 

C « 


<u  ^ 2 

'«  s 

(U  z W 

4,  g 


60  6 


^ a u 


o <u 


S W) 


c a 


^ 13  S 

n)  'T3  ^ 

~ C 
G -T?  ^ 
i-  41  nd 

O w -o 

cj  <0  .G 

o o <u 
rt  qd  43 


O 

C 4) 
« 43 

rt  4<! 
V O 

B ^ 

42 
G ^ 

3 rt 

W)  « 

C rt 


bO 
- G 


4)  ^3 

S 3 


^ -“I  rt 

■g  O ^ 

>=  o 


B 


a S 


c ^ 


t/T 


|i 

- £ 

I 8 

fl  'O  a; 


C O.  c 

rt  rt  Ui 

u *-•  o 

■“  55  'j 

si  rt 

a <u  rt 

t 


^ TS 
TJ  G 
lU  rt 


rt  ^ 


S I 

3»5  ^ 
o o 

2 

u 


w H-i 

G 4«! 


-« 

r > -w  T3 
‘ 5 rt  4> 

-^,0  4) 

g 43  to 

(U 

■v  g"  ^ 

4)  Vh  O 

41  O 33 
02  4)  C 

S " ” 

? 3^  -G 
O u G 
G3  g rt 
CJ 


IT) 


S)i£ 

G ^ 

•s  M 


c ^ 
(3  ?*» 


Td 

G ^ 


i- 


^ o 

G 33 

o § 


60 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


TJ  -Td 

S C o 

^ 2 

S S ^ 
c c 

<L>  03 

^ U 

, g *=«  -d 

S ^ 

B - ^ 

S c 3 

o W G 

^ S g « 

j_.  o ^ 

•S  c •- 
° S 51  ^ 
nd  a G 

1-^ 

S 1 3 2 

rt  ':3 

bC  3 ^ ^ 

t3  S i2 


c ^ 
S w 

_3  ^ 


<u 

^ s 


■Jh  >,  t/T 

(U  bB 

■3  "T  G 
• Si  G 35 

rQ  Td 
Id  __  Td 

T3  13  S 
c 

G S +J  ' 


= G 

bb 

C -G 


2 => 
o 33 


+j  OJ  G ^ 

g ^ O ? 

'2 


G C 

(U  ^ 

B 8 


G c' 

S 


G 


G 


U.  G 
^ O 


s rt  £ 
G B O 
G ^ O 


^ S » 
:2  B £ 

-•".'GO 
° 'Td 
G 42  i< 


Td 

B 6 


bo 


(A  o 

^ § G . 

G S'^.'S 

G G B 
G2  'Td  o G 
God 
4-.  i 

54  G « G5 
-g  D G G 

s SM  g 

'G  £ tf  '3 

“ s|  g 

- a ^ G 
G "J  ..  o 

gJ  <«  o ^ 

O U 


G nd  a 

BCG 

S B 0 
2 « 
S 


w O 

„ bo  3 

S - 42 

G ^ - MH  rt 

£ G O O . 

0^3  ^ Zx 

o ^ 2 sN  >,  51 

_C  ^ m 05 

£ ? s g i « 

S bo  o 


o "Td 

s s 


si  £ 

4->  _ O 
O G O 

GO. 

G ^ 
bo  _ "g 
S 'o  td 
U 


^ w "Td 


bo  05 
G G 

'P  P. 


G t 

B o 

tJ 


G-i£ 


G 33  D -G 


paaiuBJBiiQ 


punoj; 


paa^uB-iBUQ 


puno  j; 


p33;UBJBn0 


puno_^ 


3Jn?s;oj\r 


^ £ 


f-  ./ 


o 

ai  “ 

° s 
« < 
u u 
« Q 
3 ^ 
h Q 


.ioqiun\[  uoijBJS 


bo 
r bo 

cn  LJ  .-H 
O 

» G ;$ 
O 2; 

G 73 

"G 
rB 
t?  L/ 
w 


bo 

bo 

tJ  bo 


G 4-. 
o cn 
2 
"o 
O 


«5  "tt, 

G bO 

S.| 

£*  G 
£ > 
3 

fS  *£ 

' O 
G .22 


►A 

o'" 

D 

2 

r j Od 
^ D 

. 0 g: 

'd 

1 P3 

fr 

V 

' 

) 

\ T 

CO 

<-•  _3 

£i  0 

; ^ 

1 0 

i U 

^ G ^ 
^ £1  . 


I2J  tn  g"  y 
G O 

c ^ ^ B 
° £ o o 

O 55  o ^ 

^ B Q B 
0*^0 

hH  ^ b/) 

c 


o 

.S  ^ C^ 

^ V ^ ^ 

g ^ 3 'S 

<H  O 05 

O "o  E 1^ 

^ 1:^  ^ 
2 ■>  Q 

rd 


Bulletin  327 


61 


i/i 


(Tj 


C W 


“13 

? bp  (U 

•3.2  e c 

3 C 


c 


d .c 

d O.  U3  y 


5|  I 

rt  'O 

°.ii  a 


S 13  jj'  w Q 


t3 

C .r) 

U V 
O V 
O <n 

•^  o 

<u  S' 

o o 

rt  (j3 

CJ 


. 8 

c d 


H c*'  c ^ 

S S d - 

(U  g W3  C 

2 T3  ^ 8 
-•  O 
. ^ v*  t-i 

2 « rt  s£ 
2^  2 ^ 
u ~ M 

2 « c ~ 


03  O ^ 


13  o 

o « 

I Sse 

3 f,  rt 

-o  O ^ 

*r 

iJ  ^ « 

V-i 

Cd  5 > 

. o 

0.  .-'d  J 


•“  9 


!>e 


rt  t3 


a 


C3, 

a i- 

a ^ 


eg  £ 

- -3  2 S o 

e o o 

ad  d 

a „ - '3 

13  C 

c 'u  8 a ij 

d a .3  o d 

r \ kc  r ^ 


;3 

-V 

d S 

^ a 

fl  rd 

^ o ° 

(/)  O p, 

>>  ’:;i 

n •.  cv 
rrH  rt  H 

« .S  " 

d d 

i2  rt 


S 

sa  v- 

oj  O a! 

,y<  y 

03  d 
^''  rt  ^ 

o . 

<u  (« 

-d  '3  t; 

> 53  d 

^ rt  O 


•d  >>  -53 

^ al 


^ T3 

u “J 

\B  y> 

M 8 

-w  o 
rt  cs 

I § 

I" 


a c 

o 


t3  C 


oj  rt 

w a -H 

' a ^ 

^ y 

u 
a 

o 

d'  ^ y -O 

3^  d .3  « 

O o ^ ^ 

'g  ^ 

a!  •!-  ^ a 

^ a d ^ 

^ u 


^ CL  . . 

ii  s 13 

!3  S o 


^ d 


8 2 

J2  ^ 

c a 

o ~ 
U d 


y 

""  i£ 

^ M 

■I 

§ S 


'rt  c3 

o d ^ 

u > 


y 'O 
(U 
dC 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

i-H 

VO 

o 

in 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

0 

0 

o 

lO 

o 

o 

ON 

o 

Ox 

m 

ON 

o 

o 

o 

0 

0 

o6 

(N 

CO 

lO 

oj 

ro 

vd 

CO 

VO 

On 

fO 

XTi 

eva 

VO 

o 

00 

Ov 

on 

ON 

00 

00 

o 

in 

(M 

»— ' 

O 

t>» 

00 

CO 

ON 

CO 

Ox 

ON 

on 

on 

o 

on 

on 

c4 

evi 

o3 

’-^ 

in 

oj 

r-j 

on 

on 

ON 

on 

'B~' 

lO 

oT' 

VO 

on 

""o”“ 

in 

o”‘ 

tl~* 

o 

"o 

o 

0”' 

o~ 

m 

CSJ 

VO 

to 

to 

ON 

on 

o 

on 

o 

Ox 

r-H 

o 

o 

0 

m 

c4 

fO 

CO 

oj 

CO 

CO 

oj 

CO 

cd 

cd 

cd' 

r- f~ 

m 

lO  * 

o 

Ov 

on 

m 

r-l 

VO 

00 

00 

CvJ 

C^ 

Cv 

ON 

m 

VO 

Tt- 

o 

■0- 

ro 

CO 

CO 

oj 

in 

CO 

co 

CO 

ro 

on 

cd 

cd 

O 

o 

CO 

O 

o 

00 

in 

O 

m 

o 

Tf 

m 

m 

o 

0 

0” 

u^ 

o 

CO 

o 

vn 

00 

o 

03 

in 

Tt- 

on 

CO 

o 

0 

0 

00 

o 

o 

o 

00 

d> 

ON 

ON 

o 

o 

o 

cd 

in 

0 

,-H 

»— ' 

’— ' 

T-H 

»— ' 

’-H 

00 

CN 

' o 

Tf 

ON 

o”' 

o 

CO 

VO 

00 

CO 

CO 

ON 

CO 

00 

o 

VO 

o 

o 

VO 

m 

CO 

,-H 

VO 

VO 

00 

o 

lO 

o 

00 

o 

o\ 

O 

ON 

r-H 

on 

00 

0 

,-H 

1—i 

t-H 

r-H 

,-H 

r-H 

VO 

o 

CO 

-1- 

VO 

in 

00 

,-H 

rf 

in 

CO 

CO 

to 

t3“ 

00 

03 

CVl 

ON 

CO 

,-H 

o 

on  • 

m 

VO 

in 

ON 

,-H 

r-I 

CO 

ON 

yj( 

o 

,-H 

o 

oj 

oj 

oj 

06 

0 

,-H 

tH 

r-H 

Tl! 

<u 

O 

o 

rr- 

r— 

.73 

•Tj 

O 

Sd 

c 

% 

U) 

c 

"o 

g 

u 

a 

o 

rt 

V 

03 

u 

% 

TJ 

2 

13 

be 

'■3 

c 

o 

\l 

c? 

o 

o 

2 

"H. 

03 

o 

V 

2 

> 

o 

V 

> 

o 

•y 

ud 

d 

0 

"d 

-d 

13 

u:: 

c 

S 

rt 

c5 

u 

U 

E 

o 

o 

5 

S 

C 

Q 

X 

"o  td 
U ^ 


-d  « 

y u. 


y, 

af  -S 

•y  W 

1^  , 

^ 'd  y 
D-i  ‘■^  d 

I .<3” 

^■5.«  S 


d 

•8  S 

13  O 


J CJ  eg 


— . N 


T ^ I § 

-n  . W 

E;5 


11  ^ 

iH  Pd  j- 

>.  3 

a o - 

o tL,  ^ y 

d ^ -d 


U ^ 

w ^ 

'd 


V y 

li 

^ fr-! 


w -o  -O 
•— , <1; 
h pa 
in  „ ^ 

V) 

^ C C 

'T  <L>  (U 

111 

6“<S 


d 

o 

in  ^ 

oX 


O 

6^ 
O t3 


f.  Si  ^ 5 'E 


a!  (a  rt 


O T-  -r, 


O hJ 

tn 

w 


eg  eg  pa 

y 

> r 


^ rt 

pg  ^ 


d:  ^ 
1^ 


e— > 73 
. 43 

>7  41 

Z 

>1  Jd 
^ d 

"c  d 
^ y 
O c/2 
•d  H _ 
y "d 
y > u 
!t.  d rt 
O T3 
Jd  e/^  d 

y 03 

Id  ^ 


62 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


c c 

n! 


« ° 


E ^ 


feo 

£ 

^ 8 


^ +j  cn  > 

ni  -w  ? 


a ^ 

<u  as 

tn  O 

a 5 


o nd 

c 

t3  rt 
C 


■s  £ 

rt  o 


3 oj 
o O <U 

. feb  e 

- x) 

OJ  c 
be  <u  03  u! 
c cfi  ^ o 

'S  u 42 

(u  13  a;  _r 


T3 

S K 
^ a: 
.-M  ^ 
&j  a" 


“?  S;i  si  E 


13  -i-j  a "3 


^ o 


cS  E 

13  -§ 

a ? 


c ^ 

u 

o a- 


£ o 

° '^  S 
^ c ^ 
^ "^  £ 
.“I  "o  O 

W 8 ^ 

. 

13  « rt 


E tS 
'o 

13  " "r 

<y  52  ^ 


••a  o .-a  a 


& 

13  O 
tr  gd 


^ - n 
U S 

3 O 


13  "^3 

^ E 


a -c 

£ S 


p33;uEaEn0 


punoj 


p33}UBJBn£) 


a ^ ^ 

o'  o o 

q q 'a 

ro  evi  <^1 


punoj 


p33;uBJi?nf) 


O VO 


punoj 


r'i  1— I 


ajnjSTOj^^ 


O CM 

d d 


S C 

13  13 

rzs  -C 

E E 

03  03 

U U 


-d  a: 

E .E 

03 

u u 


G 

0 

V) 

C {/} 

G 

o 

'X 

a 

15 

O t/) 

in  ^ 

c/) 

r/l 

o' 

>> 

o 

x. 

d; 

>.  d, 

cr. 

CTj 

tf)  _ 

03  -S 

O 

- 

c 

o >. 

m ^ 

C<i 

1?  S 

13  03 

E J 
cn 


jjmiin\’  (loiiuis 


.-^  yj 


corn  gluten  feed,  linseed  oil  meal,  ground  oats, 

cottonseed  meal,  beef  scrap  and  salt. 


Bulletin  327 


63 


B 


. E 

rt  o 


B T3  c 

— <U  ni 


B ° 


-M  O 
rt  a:; 

B n 


o I ^ 

' "c"  g'  o 


B c: 
S B 


"rt  tE 

^ c3 
d 


a ? 


^ CJ  o 


'$  C 
3 

C P 

d 


33  <LI 

E 


a 

a 

3 


Jl  <u 


-3  -3 
3 C 
3 S 


-3  "3  -3 
3 3 C 
3 3 3 
O O 


3 O c3 


^ tn  -3  P 3) 


M ^ 


3 

be  « 


l^s 

“ gl 


"3  3 


- a o X 


^ ^ 3 si  3 

33  3 ^ 3 3 

S 3 3 O 

O E M 

^ m 3 -3 

bo  bfi  3 c - 

(U  c 3 3 

3 > o C 


8 1 
•3  3 
o 


yi:  3 


3 

B 3 


r3  T3 

'B  ^ 

3 a 

O 3 

J-i 

be 


-3  3; 

I? 


-•'5-3 


l-t  0 3 


>> 

3 

3 1: 

3 

tf  8 

a & 

E § 

. '•  *3 

2 B 3“  £ i 

lilsj 

..3  - .. 

a a 3 

3 E 3 a 


^ E o 


§*1 

ex 


^ ^ rH  g 


o 

u — 

be  c 

t5  . ii  - 

03 

<u  ^ 

(V 


a 2 c 


o 

V irT 
O (U 
C Cl, 


o 

u c; 

o ^ 

-0  _3  iE 
3 

14 


’0000  <^1,— I ,-H  VO  00 

vO^^^OCN  O -TON 

rvjrvir-i  ro  »-H-T  tO^r-iCM 


'000  O VO.  O O O O to  O 

to  O O to  t-v*  to  O to  VO  o 


’r^tor^totooo  co  ^ r-t-r 

l^Ovot^r'^ro  iJ*)  O OON 

CVJ  ro  ro  ro  to  <0  to  tO  ro  fO 


O 

o 


'oc 

oc 


o 

O' 


0\ 

ON 


00 

06 


o 

VO 


'o 

o 

o 


o 

2L 

00 

vO 
* VO 


;- 

03 


<U 


'^1 

VO 

X 


VO 

vO 

X 


vO 

X 


X ON  o 

rvj  rvj  ro 

VO  VO  VO 

XX  X 


POULTRY  FOODS — New  Jersey  Manufacturers — (Continued) 


64 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Mh  P 


2 rt 


S $ I 

S .S  I 

2 S S 


T3  ^ <U 


” S 


e c 

V 

"rt  ^ 

is  C 


paa^uEJEnQ 


•t  ^ 

® s ^ 
e;!  c 

O rt 

u C ^ 


o 

QJ  O 

c 

C 3 
(u  o 

B ^ 

bO 

F ^ 


c/5  4L 

ti 

S O 


s ? 

_6  o 

I S 

c c 

U 

o o 


C^u 

(U 

§ 


'O  ^ ” 


2 ^ -s 


^ _r 


’+^  <u 

« B 


B P 


£ 13 

o <u 


b; 

^ S 2 


3 

o 


o 2 
(J 


O rt  O 

O ^ ^ 

flj  I 

S O ^ 00 


. ^ - 
hE  S£  'CJ  ^ 
rt  d 

W M 
c c *=« 

q P '5  ^ 


•73)  TO 

£ ^ •«  -S  13  - 13 

o E w E 2 « 2 


^ c 
u 


3 a 


bo  » 
3 ^ 

'S  q 

<U  Co 


Si  JG,  o q ^ 


3 2 


C,  .3 
£ ^ 

-1 


;£  13  6 

.§  c 


3 £ ^ — 


u 5 


> 


^ 2* 
o a q 


S '3 

3 

^ c3 

g 3. 

'£  "q 

^ a 


^ s 

T3  -W 

(U  3 

5 2 
Of  ai 

£ 

cu 


« 3 •- 
F £ to 


3 3^ 

-3  3 c< 


00 


punoj^ 


paajuBJBUQ 


punoj; 


paaiuEjenQ 


to  <M 

oi  c3 


oa  t-H 
0\  t'; 

eg  ^ 


puno^ 


3jnisioj\[ 


u,  o 
o z 
H 3 

(j  p, 

^ C/3 


ei  < 
H u 
« Q 

H Q 

< i 

Ui  ^ 

3 

z 


jaqiun^  uoijBJS 


Td  T3 

i I 

u u 


X 
^ 


,3;  o 

3 U 

o 


bo  2 


S .2 

■2  -3  *3  x; 

3 r j 1-,  tf) 
■ 2 ^ " 

. z 

< 


th  >. 
s ^ p 

o3  < 


c/3 


CC 

w b 

N 


^ ^ o 

» -S  o 

S g-^ 
P "2  2 -3 

""  'S  « I ^ 

<u  u O P CJ 

CIh 

-S  £ I I 

c/3  -S  pq  - - 

. h , (U  <LI 

^ c^  o M W 

. 

> A 

> pH 


Bulletin  327 


65 


^ "o 
O 2 


4J  -X) 

C <U 

o ;z: 

,o  3 


"O  ^ rt 


S « 

a rt 

M 

(U 

o,  c 


I-I  ns 
? Cl 


<u 

S " 

« c 
(U  o 


'S 

♦J'  05 


'O  .S 
S G 


U 'iJ  

1-  ii  na 

M y c 


■S  F 


C S T3 
O 'G  rt 
O <" 


^ C 
6 >5 


bo 

ii  .S 

nj  ^ 

S'  3 

& S 


a V 

o C. 

S'S 

~ CS 

c 

o nj 

O 0) 

I-  "S  o U 

s£  i S C 

ci  cj  o 2 

M G o -G 

~ ^ oS 
(U  JH  OS  <u 
»— • QJ  <L)  c 
U O a G 

OS  05  C 
^ _ -d 

c 


OS  a>  ~ 
«j  J3  a 

S ^ 3 

a 

"S  S <u 

(U  r-  OJ 


d e 

oS  j. 


« s 

G S 

O Gu 
o „ 


s ^ 

a V 


2 -G 


^ <u 
.ti  G ^ 

n u o 

bfl  ^ Cd 


o ^ ^ 

be  -O  ‘o 


a ^ 


G ^ 
P S 


S 2 ^ 
8 ^ § 

S rt 

.I  6-S 

3 G G 
Gog 


G \B 


'G  -d 
C 

3 G G 

o a M 

^ *3  *r 
- ‘o  01 
nd  o 


t/5 


S'  " G § 

G O G 

G <U  a -w*  "G  33 


s C 01 

' 8 G 

J O 

- 6 


o o 
33  33 


O G 

U 


ho 

•S  d 

T3  O 

"a 

G 1*4 
V 

"G 

rt  ^ 

I C 


& in  2 
g 33  H 

S O - 


o o o 

o o o 

0\  CO  O 


7-1  "3 

rr>  T-H 
O l< 


-d 

oa  • 

o 

-d 

33 

•d 

U-t 

o 

o 

>.  rt 

o 

o 

u-t 

03 

fo 

c 

^ 

bo 

§ 

rt 

« .a 

•S 

03 

*>. 

01 

33 

O) 

<L) 

S'  2 G 

ESP 

P 

E 

§ s - 

2 Ph 


^ “ w 

>»  <U 


t-dO 

g"  I 

<u  rx 
^ <u 


G >, 
2 33 
tS  G 

pq  m 
oa  pq 

S '=<i 

33  , 


i§ 

W J 


c § 

34 

.2  >1 
33  2; 

O P 
M P 
ca  ea 
H Eh 


r-7  ^ 

a"  >. 


H . H 


H — 


o o o 

00  CO  00 


66 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


"O  4; 

S ^ 


6 .be 


bo  rt  5 


•1  S H 
«= 

L 'o 


^•5 

W -d 


— _3  ^ 

bo  - n 

- G O 
r/)  C h <-) 


3 W 
bo 

C _'• 


6 « 
C "rt 
O 


S)  ^ 

c n: 

— O 
"Gl  . 
■d  o) 


rt  'G 
<U  C 
3 

^ 2 


V 'C 

^ <u 
> ^ 
:>  (T. 


^ 3 


? O 


CJ  „ o 


v z r 
U 5 


-d  c “ c 

u rt  ro 
a ° - 

C 2 rT  "G 

(11  '1  ^ c 


a.  [/5 


Fiber  | 

paojuBaBUQ 

10.00  1 

1 10.00  ' 

1 

4.00  ' 

1 

9.17  ' 

1 

4.00 

5.50  1 

3.00  ' 

u.oo  ' 

1 

9.00  < 

1 5.00  1 

1 

8.00  ’ 

5.00  < 

puuoj 

c^r^  cs  ^ooo-i-T-ra  a 

-1-0  ruju-)  aD-t-r^in)<-0O00  c: 

oiA  cMbd  .GojaiAvoclA  cij 

H 

< 

p33}UB.IBn[) 

1 

1 

[ 2.50 

5.00^ 

3.00 

5.14 

2.56 

4.00 

1 

j 3.50! 

i 

1 3.50 

1 

1 4.50 

i 

2.50 

4.50 

3.00 

1 

puno,] 

1 

1 

1 4.22 

1 

4.00 

3.65' 

5.26 

2.98 

3.56 

3.35 

4.10 

4.88 

1 

2.81 

4.48' 

2.90 

Protein  I 

paajuBJBriQ 

1 

[10.00 

14.00^ 

1 8.00 
i 

[17.25 

10.50 

10.00 

1 

10.00| 

20.00; 

17.00 

1 

[10.00 

1 

[17.25 

1 

[10.00 

punoj[ 

-ro  i-hO  o^volo,-loco  VO 

-l-vo  OOO  r-ir/^t^oovooo  mj 

<■6  A csO  olood-ooLoo  a 

3jn}sio]Y 

aio  VO  CM  voooiM^t>.rot^  X 

xvo  Oil-;  xcMvoovot^co  a 

txol  aoo  -itM-ciocio^O 

Place  of 

Sampling 

1 1 
Englewood  .... 

1 

Somerville  

Somerville  

Passaic  

Newark  

Newark  

Newark  . .N.  . . . 

Newark  ....... 

* 

Great  Meadows. 

Trenton  

Montclair  

Montclair  

1 

jaqiun]^  uoijBJS 


CTj  o 
. P-H 


-d  ^ 
t) 

,2 


o 

X c 3 

C -S  ° 

t-i  in  ^ O 
CT;  > 


ii  >. 
t/5  ‘y  *-« 

V G 


.2  a 'S 

73  O a 


C ^ 
O cU 
1/5  (U 
C 73 


a 

"S 

3 s 

.2 


i>i  c3 

i ^ 


o 

0 hA 
IZ  . 

1 ^ 

73  . 


3 ^ 

Z ^ 

SJ  <y 


b ^ 

^ 73  Q 


33  3 O 


a} 

<U  ?- 
73 

N 


73 

S X 


> 'C 

<L> 


Bulletin  327 


67 


68 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


I Fiber  | 

p33;UEJBn0 

punoj; 

j Fat 

paOJUBJEllQ 

puaoj; 

1 Protein 

p33;uEaBn0 

punoj; 

3an;siop\]; 

jaquxn^sj  uoijejs 


£ 

S) 

(U 

o3 

> 

d 

h-^ 

>: 

o 

Pa. 

§ 

uT 

73 

S<u 
05 

a 


u 'O 

3 S 

O n 
<35  O 


o <u 

O <n 

cue 
bo  ^ ° 

2 o 
<u  2 
S --  13 


S ’s 

(U 

e -e 
2 
e 


■§:s 


e 

05 

bo  *5 

r-  <<3 
QJ 

7B  ^ 
2 

<u 


a 

<u  "2 


I-  ^ ^'' 
e rt 
O t3  U 

2 S 


^ — 
O ’ cJ 
OJ  V 
V-  M 

bo  r! 
e -Q 
C ^ 

(U 

O C 


2 

S g 


§ 

S t 

•V  CJ 

05  rH 

X ’ 

<S  *0 

£ c 

^ Z 

^ TS 

rt  Si 


(U 

2 

fl 


o <u 

•K  « ^ 

J § S 

o -c 

'C  s 

+.  g rt 


'TJ  2 

? «1 


l50  ^ 

^ 13 


iT  -33 
3 C 
O 3 
ce  o 


2 w 


u x) 
-3  o 
& ^ 


3 3 

^ t. 

-3"  O 

03  U 

u 

e 2 


3J  fe  U 
3 S 

05  ^3 

_ 3 "Tj 

5 2'^ 


si 

^ p 


<u 


O 
<U 

Ph  ^ 

- "rt 

u ^ 

bo  '+1 

.2  3 

:2  U 


c 

o 

bo 

.3 

'2 

f3  "rt 
<u 

'^''  S 
2 

■fS  ;« 

U 


33  PP 
U « 

u 


rt  3 

p 3 


6 u 
u ^ 


P rt 

P-i  .2 

g 3 

5 Ph 


U 


OJ  3 <«  O 
a n!  3 o 


u 

% 

Cl) 

.^  V 

■2  ^ 
5-1  ^ 


Bulletin  327 

POULTRY  MEAT 


60 


V 

c 

o: 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber 

AND  Dealer 

Place  of  | 
Sampling 

i 

Moisture 

Protein 

Fat 

PlIOSPIIORK 

Acid 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

I'ound 

y 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New 

York  City. 

i222 

Protox  I’ure  Ground  Meat  .Scrap  

(Vestwood  .... 

7.60 

51.88 

55.00 

14.35 

10.00 

7.39 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

<203 

Baugh’s  XX  Beef  Scrap  for  Poultry... 

Camden  

4.22 

50.25 

45.00 

20.15] 

10.00 

8.30 

The  Berg  Co->  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

S529 

Berg’s  3 Medal  Poultry  Meat  

Pennington  . . . 

5.93 

40.19 

40.00 

14.96[ 

11.00 

12.34 

Henry  Clausen,  Teaneck,  N.  J. 

1 

S209 

6.54 

47.19 

45.00 

19.37] 

1 

15.00 

7.00 

Consolidated  Dressed  Beef  Co.,  Phila.,  Pa. 

S047 

Consolidated  Beef  and  Bone  Scrap.  . . . 

llamden  

6.05| 

39.94 

45.00 

15.17] 

12.00 

12.95 

Enterprise  Tallow  & Grease  Co.,  Phila.,  Pa. 

1 

D015 

Beef  Scrap  

Mullica  Hill  . . 

9.04 

47.81 

45.00 

12.58] 

1 

12.00 

8.60 

The  Flavell  Co.,  Asbury  Park,  N.  J. 

! 

8837 

Vim  Beef  Cracklings  

Manasquan  . . . 

7.75 

50.00 

50.00 

13.08115.00 

9.98 

The  Fritz  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

] 

j 

3434 

Quaker  City  Special  Brand  Meat  and 

1 

1 

Bone  Scrap  . . . . ; 

Washington  . .. 

6.07 

36.94 

40.00 

13.80] 

10.00 

14.13 

International  Glue  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 

1 

] 

1 

0011 

*Red  Star  Brand  Fish  Scrap  

Hammonton  . .. 

6.66 

41.63 

45.00 

3.06] 

' 2.00 

17.90 

Maurer  Mfg.  Co.,  Inc.,  Elizabeth,  N.  J. 

S164 

Kwality  Meat  Scrap  

Paterson  . . 

971 

lUQ  ^8 

50.00 

16.57 

10.00 

Q 1 "I 

Noll  and  Fisher,  Newark,  N.  J. 

' 

y.  1 »5 

8376 

Noll  and  Fisher  Meat  Scrap 

German  Valley. 

8.54 

|45.69 

48.00 

12.44 

12.00 

11.07 

1 

Russia  Cement  Co.,  Gloucester,  Mass. 

1 

8812 

*Chic  Chuk  

.freehold  

5.48149.19 

50.00 

1.19 

2.00 

17.12 

Sharpless  & Bro.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

8030 

Royal  Poultry  Meat  and  Bone  Scrap.. 

Camden  

6.74 

[50.19 

50.00 

14.62 

10.00 

9.27 

M.  L.  Shoemaker  & Co.,  Ltd.,  Phila.,  Pa. 

8922 

Ground  Beef  Scrap  

VToorestown  . . . 

8.98 

[56.25' 

55.00 

14.39 

10.00 

5.60 

|Sitley  & Son,  Inc.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

] 

8008 

Peerless  Prepared  Poultry  Meat  . . . 

Pamden  

5.55 

[41.63] 

|50.00 

14.58 

14.00 

12.65 

1 

Spratt’s  Patent,  Ltd.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

8622 

Spratt’s  Ground  Meat  Scrap  

Vewark  

7.27 

[48.O6 

43.00 

11.77 

10.00 

Q “J  7 

John  T.  Stanley  Co.,  Inc.,  New  York  City. 

0.0/ 

8108 

Stanley’s  High  Protein  Meat  Scrap.... 

Fort  Lee  

9.02 

[42.00 

45.00 

9.68 

10.00 

9.75 

Swift  & Co.,  Harriston  Sta.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

8078 

Laymore  Meat  Scrap  

Hackensack  . . . 

6.83 

[48.31 

45.00 

13.00 

8.00 

11.36 

8559 

Eureka  Meat  Scrap  

Princeton  Jet.  . 

5.57 

144.06 

55.00 

16.13 

8.00 

11.77 

8267 

*Digester  Tankage  

or' 

C.0 

CC  7C 

nrv 

Q 00 

8153 

*Poultry  Bone  

Paterson 

a 44i?i  88 

OU.Uu 

25.00 

o.yz 

4.99 

6.00 

5.00 

7.57 

Taylor  Bros,  Camden,  N.  J. 

'T't  ^ 1.00 

23.62 

8053 

Special  Prepared  Poultry  Meat  ...  . 

Camden  

5.71 

I4O.44 

50.00 

16.00 

1 

14.00 

1 '2  AO 

The  Van  Iderstine  Co.,  Long  Island  City, 

io.uy 

N.  Y. 

1 

8046 

Darling’s  High  Protein  Meat  Scrap... 

Camden  

10.12 

54.19 

55.00 

10.97 

5.00 

7.51 

8852 

Darling’s  Pure  Ground  Meat  Scrap.... 

Allentown  

5.97 

147.13 

45.00 

12.64 

5.00 

8.12 

Average  

6.99 

[46.58 

14.31 

9.92 

Not  included  in  the 


average. 


70  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

REGISTRATIONS  FOR  YEAR  1918 

The  following  list  gives  the  names  and  addresses  of  the  manufac- 
turers who  have  registered  one  or  more  brands  of  feeding  stuffs 
that  will  be  offered  for  sale  during  the  year  1918.  The  detailed  in- 
formation regarding  these  brands  is  not  given,  but  information  will 
be  furnished  upon  request  concerning  any  particular  brand  that  has 
been  registered. 

A 


Acme-Evans  Co Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Alabama  Black  Belt  Co Montgomery,  Ala. 

Henry  Allen  Eatontown,  N.  J. 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co New  York  City. 

American  Hominy  Co Indianapolis,  Ind. 

American  Linseed  Co New  York  City. 

American  Maize-Products  Co New  York  City. 

American  Milling  Co.  . . Peoria,  111. 

Anderson  Grain  Co.,  Inc Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Samuel  Anderson  Hammonton,  N.  J. 

Animal  Products  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

D.  C.  Apgar  Ralston,  N.  J. 

J.  VV.  Apgar  Glen  Gardner,  N.  J. 

Henry  R.  Applegate  Hightstown,  N.  I. 

A ready  Farms  Milling  Co Chicago,  111. 

Archer-Daniels  Linseed  Co Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Arkadelphia  Milling  Co Arkadelphia,  Ark. 

Armour  Grain  Co Chicago,  111. 

Armstrong  N Demarest  Lafayette,  N.  J. 

Ashcraft-Wilkinson  Co Atlanta,  Ga. 

Frank  Atherton  Grain  Co Paterson,  N.  J. 

.Atlantic  Export  Co New  York  City. 

.Atlas  Feed  & Milling  Co Peoria,  111. 

C.  C.  Avis Woodstown,  N.  J. 

B 

j.  J.  Badenoch  Co Chicago,  111. 

Franklin  Baker  Co Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Dwight  M.  Baldwin,  Jr Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Baldwin,  Prince  & Co Norfolk,  Va. 

P.  Ballantine  & Sons  Newark,  N.  J. 

Baltimore  Pearl  Hominy  Co Baltimore,  Aid. 

Barber  Alilling  Co Alinneapolis,  Alinn. 

M.  F.  Baringer  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Barker  & Higgins  Bernardsville,  N.  J. 

W.  P.  Battle  & Co Memphis,  Tenn. 

Baugh  & Sons  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Bay  State  Alilling  Co Winona,  Alinn. 

H.  U.  Bean  & Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Warren  Beaty  Hackettstown,  N.  J. 


Bulletin  327  7 

B.  M.  Beideman  Meixhantville,  N.  T. 

H.  Beidler  & Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Samuel  Bell  & Sons  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Belvidere  Flouring  Mill  Co Belvidere,  N.  J. 

George  B.  Benedict  Elizabeth,  N.  J. 

The  Berg  Company  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Bernet,  Craft  & Kauffman  Milling  Co St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Big  Diamond  Mills  Co Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Frank  Bird  Flemington,  N.  J. 

Fred  R.  Blarney  Bloomfield,  N.  J. 

Blank  & Gottshall  Sunbury,  Pa. 

Blatchford’s  Calf  Meal  Factory  Waukegan,  111. 

H.  H.  Blauvelt  Ridgewood,  N.  J. 

George  Boggs  &:  Son  West  Collingswood,  N.  J 

J.  Bolgiano  & Son  Baltimore,  Md. 

Boston  Molasses  Feed  Co Boston,  Mass. 

F.  R.  Boyd  Medford,  N.  J. 

George  E.  Brisbin  & Co Clyde,  N.  Y.  ' 

F.  W.  Erode  & Co Memphis,  Tenn. 

Buckeye  Cereal  Co Massillon,  O. 

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Co Cincinnati,  O. 

Buffalo  Cereal  Co .' Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Burtis,  Conine  & Son  Allentown,  N..  J. 

Bushkill  Milling  Co Easton,  Pa. 

C 

L.  G.  Campbell  Milling  Co Northfield,  Minn. 

Campbell,  Morrell  & Co Passaic,  N.  J. 

Carpenter  & Knight,  Inc Morristown,  X.  J. 

Carscallen  & Cassidy  jersey  City,  N.  J. 

Chapin  & Company  Chicago,  111. 

Henry  Clausen  Teaneck,  N.  J. 

Clover  Leaf  Milling  Co Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

C.  S.  Coleman  & Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Charles  Collet  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

J.  S.  Collins  & Son,  Inc Moorestown,  N.  J. 

Commander  Mill  Co Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Commercial  Mills  & Elevator Plainfield,  N.  J. 

The  G.  E.  Conkey  Co Cleveland,  O. 

E.  W.  Conklin  & Son,  Inc Binghamton,  N.  Y. 

J.  M.  Conor  er  & Son Bartley,  N.  J. 

Consolidated  Dressed  Beef  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Consumers  Coal  Co Plainfield,  N.  J. 

Corn  Products  Refining  Co New  York  City. 

Corno  Mills  Co St.  Louis,  Mo. 

George  Cox  & Sons  West  Hoboken,  N.  J. 

Thomas  Craig  Buttzville,  N.  J. 

Aaron  D.  Crane  Elizabeth,  N.  J. 


72  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


W.  A.  Crowell  & Son  Metuchen,  N.  J, 

Curtis  & Laire  Pittstown,  N.  J. 

A.  C3^phers  Compan}^  Newark,  N.  J. 

D 

Darling  & Company  Chicago,  111. 

J.  G.  Davis  Company  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

T.  Sanford  Davis  Greenwich,  N.  J. 

S.  P.  Davis  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

E.  H.  Deats  Pittstown,  N.  J. 

Decker  & Simmons  i Sussex,  N.  J. 

C.  C.  Dempsey  & Co Gloucester  City,  N.  J, 

Denver  Alfalfa  Milling  & Products  Co * Hartman,  Colo. 

Deposit  Milling  Co Deposit,  N.  Y. 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Co Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Albert  Dickinson  Co Chicago,  111. 

Dixie  Mills  Co East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Jacob  Dold  Packing  Co Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

The  Douglas  Company  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa. 

N.  Drake  Newark,  N.  J. 

Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co Duluth,  Minn. 

Ezl.  Dunwoody  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

E 

Eagle  Roller  Mill  Co New  Ulm,  Minn. 

R.  D.  Eaton  Grain  & Feed  Co Norwich,  N.  Y. 

Jonas  F.  Eby  & Son  Lancaster,  Pa. 

B.  A.  Eckhart  Milling  Co Chicago,  111. 

Economic  Feed  Co Peekskill,  N.  Y. 

Eldredge  & Phillips,  Inc Cape  May  City,  N.  J. 

Empire  Cotton  Oil  Co Atlanta,  Ga. 

Empire  Grain  & Elevator  Co Binghamton,  N.  Y. 

Enterprise  Tallow  & Grease  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

John  W.  Eshelman  Lancaster,  Pa. 

Evans  Milling  Co Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Everett,  Aughenbaugh  & Co Waseca,  Minn. 

Ewen  Milling  Co Alloway,  N.  J. 

Excello  Feed  Milling  Co St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

F 

Fairfield  Dairy  Supply  Co Little  Falls,  N.  J. 

Farmers  Feed  Co New  York  City. 

Felt  Bros.  & Gage  Co Olean,  N.  Y. 

Ferger  Grain  Co Cincinnati,  O. 

'J'he  Flavell  Co Asbury  Park,  N.  J. 

The  Fleischmann  Co Peekskill,  N.  Y. 

Flemington  Jet.  Cereal  & Flour  Mills Flemington  Jet.,  N.  J. 

Flemington  Milling  Co Flemington,  N.  J. 

Flory  Milling  Co Bangor,  Pa. 

Alexander  Forbes  & Co.,  Inc Newark,  N.  J. 


Bulletin  327  73 


George  T.  Freeman  

T.  D.  Fritch  & Sons  

The  Fritz  Company  

C.  A,  Gambrill  Manufacturing  Co. 

G 

James  Gardner  

George  F.  Geisinger  

Harry  G.  Gere  Co.,  Inc 

Globe  Elevator  Co.  

Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Golden  Grain  Milling  Co 

J.  P.  Golden  & Son 

Yardville,  N.  J. 

Grain  Belt  Mills  Co 

Grain  Products  Sales  Co 

D.  H.  Grandin  Milling  Co 

Gross  Bros 

Walter  H.  Grove  

J.  H.  Grover  & Son 

H 

Hackensack  Grain  & Hay  Co 

B.  T.  Haggertv  

Hales  & Edwards  Co 

Dwight  E.  Hamlin  

Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

A.  L.  Hance  

A.  Hanniball,  Inc 

: 

The  Harrison  Co 

Caldwell,  N.  J. 

Harrison  Milling  Co 

F.  D.  Hartzel’s  Sons  

Hasselhuhn-Williams  Co 

Haywood  Alfalfa  Warehouse  Co. 

Hecker-Jones-Jewell  Milling  Co.  . . 

Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Hecker-Jones-Jewell  Milling  Co.  .. 

G.  C.  Higgins  & Son 

Alvin  Hill  & Son  

G.  F.  Hill  & Co 

The  H.  0.  Company  

Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

I.  A.  Hoffman  & Son 

Holley  & Smith  

E.  Hollingshead  

Hopkins  & Merrell  Co 

Hottelet  Company  

J.  A.  Howell  

Howell  Sons  

J.  C.  Hubinger  Bros.  Co 

W.  F.  Hummer  

Milford,  N.  J. 

Humphreys-Godwin  Co 

J.  R.  Hunt  

Hutchinson  Bros 

E.  C.  Hutchinson  Milling  Co 

74  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

I 


Ideal  Rendering  Co North  Wales,  Pa. 

Indiana  Milling  Co Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

H.  B.  Ingersoll  Hamburg,  N.  J. 

International  Glue  Co Boston,  Mass. 

International  Sugar  Feed  Co Minneapolis,  Minn. 


J 

Jamestown  Electric  Mills  

W.  J.  Jennison  Co 

Johnson  Bros 

R.  S.  Johnson  

Martin  B.  Jones  & Co 


Jamestown,  N.  Y. 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Bridgeton,  N.  J. 
Bridgeton,  N.  J. 
New  York  City. 


K 

Kasco  Mills  

Edward  G.  Kaufer  

Keever  Starch  Co 

Spencer  Kellogg  & Sons,  Inc 

Kelloggs  & Miller  

Kemper  Mill  & Elevator  Co 

Kirby  Bros 

George  FI.  Kirby  & Son  

J.  C.  Klauder  Estate 

John  P,  Klug  

Kornfalfa  Feed  Milling  Co 

Charles  A.  Krause  Milling  Co 

G.  Krueger  Brewing  Co 

Knestner  Bros 


.Waverley,  N.  Y. 
.Fort  Lee,  N.  J. 

; Columbus,  O. 
.Buffalo,  N.  Y. 
.Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
.Kansas  City,  Mo. 
.Medford,  N.  J. 
.Allentown,  N.  J. 
.Philadelphia,  Pa. 
.New  Milford,  N.  J. 
.Kansas  City,  Mo. 
.Milwaukee,  Wis. 
.Newark,  N.  J. 
.Trenton,  N.  J. 


L 


Charles  L.  Lade Morristown,  N.  J. 

Lambert  & Kerr  Lambertville,  N.  J. 

Lancaster  Mill  & Elevator  Co Lancaster,  Pa. 

Lanier  Bros Nashville,  Tenn. 

J.  P.  Larison  Washington,  N.  J. 

Larrowe  Milling  Co Detroit,  Mich. 

Lea  Milling  Co Wilmington,  Del. 

Frank  LeBar  Stroudsburg,  Pa. 

E.  K.  Lemont  & Son  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

C.  H.  Leonard  Co Boonton,  N.  J. 

John  C.  Liken  & Co Sebewaing,  Mich. 

Listman  Mill  Co LaCrosse,  Wis. 

Little  & Wilson  Pittstown,  N.  J. 

Long  Dock  Mills  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

Lunger  Grain  & Elevator  Co Netcong,  N.  J. 

Lyle  & Lyle  Huntsville,  Ala. 


Bulletin  327  75 

M 

G.  G.  MacPherson  Lebanon,  N.  J. 

Mann  & Allshouse  Easton,  Pa. 

Mann  Bros  Co Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

The  Manning  Co Sussex,  N.  J. 

Maritime  Trading  Corporation  New  York  City. 

Martenis  Bros New  York  City. 

D.  B.  Martin  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Maurer  Manufacturing  Co.,  Inc Newark,  N.  J. 

Mauser  & Cressm'an  Catasauqua,  Pa. 

Mauser  Mill  Co Treichlers,  Pa. 

McMurtrie  Milling  Co Belvidere,  N.  J. 

Meader-Atlas  Co New  York  City. 

Clifford  Mehrhof,  Inc Ridgefield,  N.  J. 

Memphis  Cotton  Hull  & Fiber  Co.,  Ltd Memphis,  Tenn. 

Mercer  Milling  Co Wilburtha,  N.  J. 

Merchants  Wholesale  Grocery  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Meridian  Grain  & Elevator  Co Meridian,  Miss. 

Messier  & Shannon  Blairstown,  N.  J. 

Metropolitan  Mills  New  York  City. 

Metzger  Seed  & Oil  Co Toledo,  O. 

Meyer  & DeVogel  ; Paterson,  N.  J. 

Midland  Linseed  Products  Co Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Midland  Milling  Co Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Millbourne  Mills  : Philadelphia,  Pa. 

H.  N.  Miller  Peapack,  N.  J. 

V.  T.  Miller  Manasquan,  N.  J. 

Millville  Flour  & Grain  Co Millville,  N.  J. 

Miner-Hillard  Milling  Co Wilkesbarre,  Pa. 

C.  P.  Mohrfeld  Collingswood,  N.  J. 

C.  L.  Montgomery  & Co Memphis,  Tenn. 

George  Q.  Moon  & Co Binghamton,  N.  Y. 

Alystic  Milling  & Feed  Co Rochester,  N.  Y. 

N 

National  Feed  Co St.  Louis,  Mo. 

National  Oats  Co St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Neighbor  & Son  Calif  on,  N.  J. 

K.  & E.  Neumond  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Neustadt  & Co New  York  City. 

Nischwitz  & Son  Plainfield,  N.  J. 

Noblesville  Milling  Co Noblesville,  Ind. 

Noll  & Fischer  Newark,  N.  J. 

Northwestern  Consolidated  Milling  Co Minneaipolis,  Minn. 

Northwestern  Elevator  & Mill  Co Toledo,  O. 

W.  C.  Nothern  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Nowak  Milling  Corporation  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Nucoa  Butter  Co Bayonne,  N.  J. 

Jesse  H.  Nunn  Bartley,  N.  J. 


76 


New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


O 

Peter  O’Blenis  Paterson,  N.  J. 

R.  J.  O’Brien  & Bros  Co Passaic,  N.  J. 

Oil  Seeds  Co Bayonne,  N.  J. 

O.  K.  Company  New  York  City. 

Omaha  Alfalfa  Milling  Co Omaha,  Neb. 

Oradell  Flour,  Feed  & Grain  Co Oradell,  N.  J. 

Charles  C.  Ort  Hackettstown,  N.  J. 

P 

Park  & Pollard  Co Boston,  Mass. 

Patent  Cereals  Co .Geneva,  N.  Y. 

Penn  Grains  & Feed  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Penwell  Mills,  Inc Port  Murray,  N.  J. 

M.  C.  Peters  Mill  Co Omaha,  Neb. 

Phelps  & Sibley  Co Cuba,  N.  Y. 

Philadelphia  Seed  Co.,  Inc Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Piel  Bros.  Starch  Co Indianapolis,  Ind. 

H.  L.  Pierson  Estate  Maplewood,  N.  J. 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Co Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Poe  Cottonseed  Products  Co Memphis,  Tenn. 

Polar  Wave  Ice  & Fuel  Co St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Prairie  State  Milling  Co Chicago,  111. 

Pratt  Food  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Proctor  & Gamble  Distributing  Co Cincinnati,  O. 

William  V.  Pulis  Campgaw,  N.  J. 

Purity  Oats  Co Davenport,  Iowa. 

Q 

* Quaker  City  Flour  Mills  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Quaker  Oats  Co Chicago,  111. 

R 

Ralston-Purina  Co St.  Louis,  Mo. 

M.  G.  Rankin  & Co Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Red  Wing  Milling  Co Red  Wing,  Minn. 

Reece  & Greenly  Millville,  Pa. 

C.  A.  & T.  P.  Reed Pennington,  N.  J. 

F.  I.  Reger  Somerville,  N.  J. 

William  D.  Reger  White  House,  N.  J. 

Robert  A.  Reichard  Allentown,  Pa. 

John  M.  Reuter  & Co Elizabeth,  N.  J. 

George  Richards  Co Dover,  N.  J. 

John  L.  Riegel  & Son  Riegelsville,  N.  J. 

Riverside  Milling  & Coal  Co Riverside,  N.  J. 

George  B.  Robinson,  Jr New  York  City. 

A.  S.  Rockafellow  Flemington,  N.  J. 

Rockhill  & Fowler  Haddonfield,  N.  T. 

Rosekrans-Snyder  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Bulletin  327 

Russell-Miller  Milling  Co 

Russia  Cement  Co 

Ryde  & Company  


Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Gloucester,  Mass. 
Chicago,  111. 


S 

Saeger  Milling  Co 

St.  Mary’s  Mill  Co 

Wm.  G Scarlett  & Co 

S.  F.  Scattergood  & Co 

Chas.  Schaefer  & Son  

W.  Schlesinger  

Nicholas  Scholl  

B.  F.  Schwartz  & Co.,  Inc 

S.  Alfred  Seely  Co 

Shane  Bros.  & Wilson  Co 

Sharpless  & Bro 

Sheffield-King  Milling  Co 

Sherwin-Williams  Co 

S.  A.  Shillinger  

The  Shoemaker  Co 

M.  L.  Shoemaker  & Co.,  Inc 

M.  W.  Simonson  Co 

Simpson,  Hendee  & Co 

S.  Sindle  & Son  

Sitley  & Son,  Inc 

S.  Smedley  & Son  

J.  C.  Smith  & Wallace  Co 

J.  W.  Smith  & Sons  

Newell  N.  Smith  

Smith,  Parry  & Co 

C.  H.  Bnyder  & Son 

Somers  & Co 

J.  E.  Soper  Co 

T.  C.  Souder  & Son 

South  Branch  Mill  

South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange  .... 

Southwestern  Milling  Co 

Sparks  Milling  Co 

Spratt’s  Patent  (Am.)  Ltd 

A.  E.  Staley  Mfg.  Co 

Stamets  & Pursel  : 

Stanard-Tilton  Milling  Co 

John  T.  Stanley  Co.,  Inc 

Star  & Crescent  Milling  Co 

J.  & A.  Steinberg  Co 

Bernhard  Stern  & Sons,  Inc 

S.  A.  Stewart  

Zebulon  V.  Stillwell  


.Allentown,  Pa. 

. St.  Mary,  Mo. 
.Baltimore,  Md. 
.Philadelphia,  Pa. 
.Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

• New  Brunswick,  N.  J 

• Newark,  N.  J. 

.New  York  City. 

. Spencer,  N.  Y. 
.Minneapolis,  Minn. 
.Camden,  N.  J. 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 
.Cleveland,  O. 

. Stewartsville,  N.  J. 
.Oakwood,  N.  Y. 

. Philadelphia,  Pa. 
.Newark,  N.  J. 

.New  York  City. 
.Little  Falls,  N.  J. 

• Camden,  N.  J. 
.Glassboro,  N.  J. 
.Newark,  N.  J. 
.Stockton,  N.  J. 

• West  Orange,  N.  J. 
.Milwaukee,  Wis. 
.Freehold,  N.  J. 

. San  Francisco,  Calif. 
.Boston,  Mass. 
.Millville,  N,  J. 

.South  Branch,  N.  J. 
.Woodstown,  N.  J. 
.Kansas  City,  Mo. 
.Alton,  111. 

.Newark,  N.  J. 
.Decatur,  111. 
.Phillipsburg,  N.  J. 
.St.  Louis,  Mo. 

.New  York  City. 
.Chicago,  111. 

.Passaic,  N.  J. 
.Alilwaukee,  Wis. 
.Woodbury,  N.  J. 
.Villa  Park,  N.  J. 


77 


78  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

Wilbert  Stires  Bridgeville,  N.  J. 

Stonaker  & Casey  Jamesburg,  N.  J. 

I.  S.  Stover  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Suffern-Hunt  Mills  Decatur,  111. 

The  Sugarine  Co Peoria,  111. 

W.  W.  Supplee  Hampton,  N.  J. 

Swift  & Co Chicago,  111. 

Syracuse  Rendering  Co Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

T 

Taylor  Bros Camden,  N.  J. 

Terhune’s  Poultry  Supply  & Feed  Co.  . . .' Hackensack,  N.  J. 

Thatcher  & Barnum  Hoboken,  N.  J. 

W.  & W.  E.  Thomas  Milford,  N.  J. 

A.  Thompson  & Co.  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Nelson  Thompson  & Co Kingston,  N.  J. 

Thompson  & Mould  Goshen,  N.  Y. 

J.  A.  Tiger  Calif  on,  N.  J. 

William  N.  Tilton  Leonia,  N.  J. 

Tioga  Mill  & Elevator  Co Waverly,  N.  Y. 

Toledo  Elevator  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Turnerville  Roller  Mills  Sewell,  N.  J. 

Joseph  F.  Tuttle Rockaway,  N.  J. 

U 

Ubiko  Milling  Co Cincinnati,  O. 

Union  Grain  Co Plainfield,  N.  J. 

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Co New  York  City. 

George  Urban  Milling  Co Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

V 

A.  J.  Van  Den  Berg North  Paterson,  N.  J. 

The  Van  Iderstine  Co Long  Island  City,  N.  Y 

Frank  M.  Van  Ness  Towaco,  N.  J. 

Virginia  Feed  & Milling  Corporation  Alexandria,  Va. 

William  S.  Vroom  Somerville,  N.  J. 

E.  J.  Vusler  Hope,  N.  J. 

W 

C.  W.  Wagar  & Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

L.  R.  Wallace  Middletown,  N.  Y. 

Walters  Milling  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Walton  Bros Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Wannemacher  & Weis  Co Passaic,  N.  J. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wash-Co  Alfalfa  Milling  Co Fort  Calhoun,  Neb. 

J.  F.  Weinmann  Milling  Co Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Otto  Weiss  Milling  Co Wichita,  Kan. 

Henry  G.  Werner  Deans,  N.  J. 


Bulletin  327 


79 


Western  Grain  Products  Co Hammond,  Ind. 

Western  Grains  & Feed  Co Chicago,  III. 

Westwood  Feed  Co Westwood,  N.  J. 

Fred  D.  Wikoff  Co Red  Bank,  N.  J. 

Wilkinson,  Gaddis  & Co Newark,  N.  J. 

Frank  C.  Williams  Easton,  Pa. 

G.  Z.  Williams  Great  Meadows,  N.  J. 

Burt  H.  Winchester,  Inc Newark,  N.  J. 

Jacob  S.  Wiseburn  & Son  Stephensburg,  N.  J. 

Wolff  Bros Paterson,  N.  J. 

George  A.  Woodward  Cookstown,  N.  J. 

S.  C.  Woolman  & Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

D.  R.  Worman  Frenchtown,  N.  J. 

Vernon  Wortman  Pottersville,  N.  J. 

J.  M.  Wyckoff  East  Stroudsburg,  Pa. 

Jacob  R.  Wyckoff  Princeton  Jet.,  N.  J. 

M.  G.  & A.  P.  Wyckoff  Co Manasquan,  N.  J. 

Wm.  H.  H.  Wyckoff  Co Somerville,  N.  J. 

Y 

Yerxa,  Andrews  & Thurston,  Inc Minneapolis,  Minn. 

George  O.  Young  Andover,  N.  J. 


V, - -''"Vy,  ’'/■’'ll 


.5 


Qlj 

New  Jersey  mau 

f i I , 

Agricultural  Experiment  Stations 


BULLETIN  328 


Sprayed  Unsprayed 

Effect  of  proper  spraying 


SOME  IMPORTANT  ORCHARD  PLANT  LICE 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  AQRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS* 

NEW  BRUNSWICK.  N.  J. 


STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 


BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 


His  Excellency  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County  Name 

Atlantic  William  A.  Blair 
Bergen  Arthur  Lozier 
Burlington  R.  R.  Lippincott 
Camden  Ephraim  T.  Gill 
Cape  May  Charles  Vanaman 
Cumberland  Charles  F.  Seabrook 
Essex  Zenos  G.  Crane 

Gloucester  AA'ilbur  Beckett 
Hudson  Diedrich  Bahrenburg 
Hunterdon  Egbert  T.  Bush 
Mercer  Josiah  T.  Allinson 


Address 
Elwood 
Ridgewood 
Vincentown 
Haddonfield 
Dias  Creek 
Bridgeton 
Caldwell 
Swedesboro 
Union  Hill 
Stockton 
Yardville 


County 

Middlesex 

Monmouth 

Morris 

Ocean 

Passaic 

Salem 

Somerset 

Sussex 

Union 

Warren 


Name 

James  Neilson 
William  H.  Reid 
John  C.  Welsh 
Joseph  Sapp 
Isaac  A.  Serven 
Charles  R.  Hires 
Joseph  Larocque 
Robert  V.  Armstrong 
John  Z.  Hatfield 
James  1.  Cooke 


Address 
New  Bruns’k 
Tennent 
Ger’n  \ alley 
Tuckerton 
Clifton 
Salem 

Bernardsville 
Augusta 
Scotch  Plains 
Delaware 


STAFF. 


Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D... 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc.  . 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss.  . 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc 
Hazel  H.  Moran 

Frank  App,  B.Sc Agronomist.  I 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.Sc. . .Associate  Agronomist. 

J.  Marshall  LIunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

Harry  C.  McLean,  Ph.D .. Chemist  Soil  Res’h. 
William  M.  Regan,  A.M .. Dairy  Husbandman. 
WiLLES  B.  Combs,  A.M., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman 

Thomas  J.  FIEadlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Maurice  A.  Blake,  B.Sc Horticulturist. 


Director. 

Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

Editor. 

Assistant  Librarian. 

Vincent  J.  BreazEale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing. 
Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc., 

Sipecialist  in  Fruit  Studies. 
William  SchieferstiHn,  ..Orchard  Foreman. 
Lyman  G.  Schermihihorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 

IT.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.AGr.,  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hanna-',  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

El.mEr  H.  WEnE  Poultry  Foreman. 

John  P.  Helyap,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B . . . . Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 


W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New'  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  I-I.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN,  Raritan. 

J.  AMORY  HASKELL,  Red  Bank. 


STAFF. 


JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B. 

Byron  D.  Halsted,  Sc.D Botanist. 

John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D  ....  Plant  Physiologist. 
Earle  j.  Owen,  M.Sc.  ..  .Assistant  in  Botany. 
Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding. 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.D Asst.  Entomologist. 


Director. 

Chief  Clerk. 

Augusta  E.  Meske.  ...  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 
Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D  ....  Plant  Pathologist. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

.Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Cyrus  WitmEr.  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


Staff  list  reviseil  to  June  30,  1918. 


NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 
AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Alva  Agee,  M.Sc.,  Director  and  State  Superin- 
tendent of  County  Demonstration. 

Frank  App,  E.Sc.,  Acting  State  Leader  of 
Farm  Demonstration.. 

VActor  G.  Aubry,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  \V.  Bartlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

RoscoE  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fertility 
and  Agronomy. 

William  B.  Duryee,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Farm 
Management. 

Marjory  Eells,  D.S.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

Edna  Gulick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 


William  FI.  FIamilton,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  State 
Leader  of  County  Demonstration. 

M.  Anna  Hauser,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Leader. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

Sara  T.  Jackson,  B.S.,  Assistant  State  Club 
Leader. 

Nelle  Johnson,  M.A.,  Assistant  Home  Dem- 
onstration Leader. 

Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Helen  E.  Minch,  Specialist,  Home  Economics. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc.,  Editor. 


Paul  B.  Bennetch,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Sussex  County. 

Frank  A.  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County. 

Bertha  Cold,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Jersey  City. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration  Ageni 
for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Ellwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  foi 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

Philip  F.  Keil,  Demonstration  Agent  for  Bur- 
lington County. 


Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

L-  F.  Merrill,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for  Ber- 
gen County. 

.Vdelia  F.  Noble,  Flome  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cumberland  County. 

Ethel  Osmond,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

I.ENA  R.  Pierce,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
*\.gent  for  Trenton. 

Regine  Porges,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic. 

Caroline  R.  Simons,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Camden. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator 
for  Cape  May  County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Walter  C.  Vail,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Salem  County. 

Louisa  VanuxEm,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Newark. 

NorinE  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  WettyEn,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 


CONTENTS 


page 

Introduction  5 

Recognition  Marks 6 

Nature  and  Extent  of  Injury 8 

Life  History  and  Habits 10 

Control  13 

Determining  Whether  Control  Measures  are  Necessary 13 

The  Problem 13 

Destroying  the  Aphis  in  the  Fall 14 

Destroying  the  Aphis  in  the  Egg  Stage 14 

Destroying  the  Aphis  in  the  Spring  and  Summer 15 

Conclusions  26 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Effect  of  proper  spraying Cover 

Fig.  I.  First  stage  of  the  green,  the  rosy  and  the  oat  aphis 6 

Fig.  2.  Injury  to  foliage 8 

Fig.  3.  Injury  to  fruit 9 

Fig.  4.  Trees  not  properly  sprayed  for  aphis 22 

Fig.  5.  Trees  properly  sprayed  for  aphis 23 

Fig.  6.  Stages  in  bud  development 25 


(4) 


r 


New  Jersey 

Agricultural  Experiment  Stations 


BULLETIN  328 

FEBRUARY  15,  1918 


Some  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lice 


BY 

Thomas  J.  Headbee,  Ph.D. 

In  ivintcr,  small  (1/30  of  an  inch  long)  sJiining-hlack  oval 
eggs  on  the  roughened  places  or  close  to  the  buds  of  the  small 
tender  twigs  of  the  apple  tree;  in  spring  and  early  summer, 
small  variously  colored  lice  congregated  on  the  undersides  of  the 
leaves  causing  them  to  curl  up,  die,  and  fall  off,  dzoarfng  the 
fruit  and  sometimes  ruining  the  crop. 

Introduction 

Four  species  of  plant  lice  are  usually  listed  as  commonly 
attacking  the  foliage  and  to  some  extent  the  fruit  of  the  apple 
tree.  All  winter  in  the  egg  stage  on  the  smaller  branches  and 
twigs  of  the  trees.  All  hatch  from  the  eggs  and  develop  one 
or  more  generations  on  the  tree.  All  except  one — the  green 
apple  aphis — migrate  from  the  apple  to  other  plants.  All  return 
to  the  apple  either  the  first  or  second  fall  following  and  lay 
the  over-wintering  eggs.  The  species  concerned  are  the  green 
apple  aphis  (Aphis  pomi  DeG. ),  the  rosy  apple  aphis  (Aphis 
sorbi  Kalt.  ),  the  oat  aphis  (Siphocoryne  avence  Fab.)  and  the 
clover  aphis  (Aphis  bakcri  Cowsen). 

In  New  Jersey  the  clover  aphis  has  not  l)een  recorded.  Until 
two  years  ago  the  green  apple  aphis  was  the  only  species  re- 
garded as  a pest.  In  the  season  of  IQ15  the  rosy  apple  aphis 
appeared  in  large  numliers  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  state  and 

(5) 


6 


BuixKTin  328 


did  much  damage.  The  failure  of  the  usual  methods  of  aphis 
control  when  this  species  appeared  necessitated  a study  of  the 
problem! , and  in  the  follovx  ing  account  it  is  attempted  to  set  forth 
the  most  important  of  the  results  obtained. 

Recognition  Marks 

The  stage  in  which  the  aphis  is  found  throughout  the  winter 
and  early  spring  is  a small  shining-black  egg  fastened  to  the 
hark  of  the  twigs  and  smaller  branches.  They  are  likely  to  be 
laid  on  the  tender  ends  of  water  sprouts,  in  the  depressions  about 
bud  and  pruning  scars,  or  partly  or  completely  inserted  between 
die  buds  and  the  stem.  The  eggs  of  green  apple  aphis  have  in 
our  experience  been  more  commonly  found  on  the  water  sprouts 
than  those  of  either  of  the  other  species. 


Fig.  I.  First  stage  of  the  green,  the  rosy  and  the  oat  aphis 
(After  Parrott,  Hodgkiss  and  Lathrop) 


The  newly-hatched  lice  of  the  green,  the  rosy,  and  the  oat 
a])his  are  very  small,  dark-green  in  color  and  look  much  alike. 
Ikirroit,  Hodgekiss,  and  Lathrop^  have  discovered  differences 
by  which  one  species  may  lie  told  from  another,  and  Dr.  Alvah 
Peterson  has  found  that  the  characters  cited  by  them  hold  for 
New  Jersey  conditions. 

'Phe  length  of  the  antemux,  or  feelers,  and  the  size  and  shape 
of  the  cornicles,  or  honey  tubes,  are  the  points  that  we  have 
found  most  useful  in  distinguishing  the  different  species. 

As  these  young  develop  into  wingless  stem-mothers,  their 
characteristic  differences  become  so  distinct  that  recognition  of 

Nk'in-olt,  P.  1.,  Hodgekiss,  H.  E.,  and  T.athrop,  F.  H.,  1917.  Plant  lice 
injurious  to  api)lc  orchards.  IT.  vSlndics  on  control  of  newly-hatchcd  aphides. 
X.  Y.  (Oeneva)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rnl.  431. 


Table  of  Distinguishing  Characters 


7 


SoMK  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lick 


T3 

(U 

& 

be 

- 

X! 

x: 

3 

CO 

> 

P 

P 

0/ 

"O 

C/) 

c 

03 

C/3 

C- 

x: 

3 

"5 

>< 

^ c/3  ^ ~ 

>> 

OJ 

’S 

5 c 

S 

o 

CJ 

u 

0^ 

C3 

u 

O 

S O 

o 

s 1 

m 1 

h4 

>. 

^ be 

1 

Cf)  O C 

-TU 

O 

o 

c. 

M 

i-  ^ 

povv 

rs  ^ 2 c 

1 

1 

1 

^ I 

p 

.L  V c/3 

bJ) 

^ X5 
hr-'-' 
tX  Cjb 

p 

E o 

OM-I 

u .3 

^ 

h/l  "*“* 

Antenna 

reachinj 
only 
le  pair 

than  t 
shorter 
second ; 
at  tip 

-caching 
sase  of 

'3'C 

(n  'O 

o ^'S 

gs^g 

go| 

o 

xn 

h4 

I P 

o 

V- 

bj 

(l> 

•3 

•£ 

^c« 

TU 

a 

cc: 

03  <U 

V 

K 

iS 

^ cr 

"C  r3 

3 c/3 

"S 

''^'c 

1 

iE 

x:  o 

3 

rt 

1 H 

1 ^ 

1 P 

s 

c; 

^ ^ 

u 

W) 

n 

Color 

rt 

-o 

13 

S 

X 

ark  green  and 
lighter  than 
other  species, 
ing  to  almos 
brownish  yelh 

ark  green 

G 

1 P 

t/l 

1 

1 

tfi 

D, 

3c 

OJ 

a 

m* 

’o 

<u 

TO 

a; 

<U 

Cl, 

t« 

'E 

t/5 

IS 

c? 

s 

c. 

TO- 

rt 

c 

CU 

>. 

0 

o 

o 

X 

8 


Bulletin  328 


the  species  l)ecomes  eas}^  The  adult  stem-mother  of  the  oat 
aphis  is  pale  yellowish  green,  with  a darker  streak  along  the  mid- 
dle line  of  the  back,  while  that  of  the  green  apple  aphis  is  bright 
green,  and  that  of  the  rosy  aphis  has  a slaty  cast  and  is  covered 
with  powder. 

Nature  and  Extent  oe  Injury 

As  soon  as  each  species  hatches  from  the  egg  it  attacks  such 
of  the  young  unfolding  foliage  as  may  be  out.  It  works  its 
mouth  parts  through  the  rind  of  the  plant  and  sucks  out  the 
sap.  As  the  flower  buds  are  exposed  by  the  development  of  the 
tree,  they  in  turn  are  attacked. 


Fig.  2.  Injury  to  foliage 


d'he  wounding  of  the  tissue  and  the  withdrawal  of  sap  upsets 
the  rate  of  growth  of  the  part  attacked  in  such  a fashion  as  to 
cause  curling  of  foliage  and  distortion  of  the  fruit. 

The  activity  of  the  oat  a])his  causes  little  curling  of  the  foliage, 
and  as  the  second  brood  develops  wings  and  leaves  the  tree  by 
the  time  the  fruit  has  well  set,  the  trouble  is  soon  past.  To  what 
extent  the  feeding  on  the  buds  and  llower  clusters  may  so  weaken 
them  as  to  prevent  .setting,  we  do  not  know,  but  it  is  possible 
that  such  an  injury  takes  place. 


SomK  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lick 


9 


The  green  apple  aphis,  like  the  preceding  species,  causes  little 
curling  of  the  foliage  at  the  beginning  of  the  season.  Later  its 
activity  results  in  the  most  pronounced  curling. 

The  rosy  apple  aphis,  on  the  other  hand,  produces  much  curl- 
ing of  the  foliage,  probably  because  it  devotes  its  attention  more 
exclusively  to  the  leaves. 

Both  the  green  apple  aphis  and  the  rosy,  especially  the  latter, 
have  done  very  serious  injury  to  fruit,  causing  it  to  be  knotted 
and  gnarled  and  never  to  reach  a salable  size. 

Recently  it  has  been  shown  that  plant  lice  can  and  do  spread 
hre  blight.-  It  is  thought  that  such  of  them  as  hatch  from  eggs 
which  were  laid  in  blight  cankers  may  carry  the  blight  germ  to 
other  parts  of  the  tree. 


Fig.  3.  Injury  to  fruit 

The  extent  of  the  injury  depends  upon  the  abundance  of  the 
lice.  When  very  plentiful  the  tree  may  be  almost  defoliated 
and  the  crop  utterly  ruined.  In  1915  the  injury  was  general 
throughout  the  state  and  orchards  everywhere  showed  the  work 
of  plant  lice.  The  season  of  1916  showed  a smaller  amount  of 

* Merrill,  J.  H.,  1917.  Further  data  on  the  relation  of  aphides  and  fire 
blight  (Bacillius  ainylororus) . In  Jour.  Econ.  Ent.,  v.  10,  p.  45-47. 


lO 


Bulletin  328 


injury,  and  there  was  an  epidemic  of  fire  l)light.  As  seen  by 
the  writer,  there  is  no  necessary  connection  between  the  epidemic 
and  the  aphis,  because  the  aphis  was  worse  in  1915  and  1917 
than  in  1916,  while  the  fire  blight  was  limited  in  these  two  years. 

In  1915  Mr.  John  Barclay,  of  Cranbury,  estimated  the  damage 
done  his  orchard  by  apple  aphis  at  $40  an  acre.  This  occurred 
in  spite  of  the  practice  of  what  was  then  thought  to  be  careful 
spraying  for  the  insects. 

Life  History  and  Habits 

All  species  pass  the  winter  in  the  egg  stage  attached  to  the 
bark  of  the  twigs  and  smaller  branches  of  the  trees.  The  green 
apple  aphis  appears  to  be  partial  to  water  sprouts,  while  the  eggs 
of  the  other  species  are  likely  to  be  found  in  depressions  about 
pruning,  bud  and  fruit  scars,  or  thrust  almost  or  quite  out  of 
sight  between  the  bud  and  stem. 

The  oat  aphis  was  the  first  species  to  hatch  at  New  Brunswick 
and  vicinity  in  the  spring  of  1917.  They  were  discovered  on 
the  buds  on  March  31.  Then  (about  April  12  to  14)  came  the 
rosy  aphis  and  green  apple  aphis  almost  coincidently.  The  dif- 
ference in  the  time  of  hatching  of  the  first  two  species  was  suf- 
ficiently great  for  the  oat  aphis  to  have  hatched  and  reached  the 
buds,  and  to  have  been  destroyed  by  insecticides,  while  the  rosy, 
at  that  time  in  the  egg  stage,  hatched  later  and  seriously  dam- 
aged the  foliage. 

The  oat  aphis  reached  the  buds  as  they  were  swelling  and 
before  any  leaves  were  yet  projecting,  while  the  rosy  came  on 
only  after  the  tiny  leaves  were  projecting  from  forward  buds 
like  squirrel  ears.  The  rosy  aphis  hatched  at  the  same  stage  of 
bud  development  as  in  1916.  Inasmuch  as  the  experience  rela- 
tive to  time  when  the  rosy  aphis  hatches  differs  in  different  parts 
of  the  country,  the  writer  will  quote  from  his  notes  in  1916: 
“Early  in  the  forenoon  Mr.  Barclay  called  me  over  the  telephone 
and  told  me  that  the  aphis  began  emerging  in  his  orchard  in 
enormous  numbers  on  the  preceding  afternoon  (April  15,  1916). 
The  day  was  clear  and  warm  and  the  personal  examination, 
which  I made  later  in  the  morning,  showed  aphis  present  every- 
where in  large  numbers.  Nearly  every  flower  bud  on  unsprayed 
trees  showed  at  least  one-half  dozen  specimens,  while  the  buds  on 
trees  treated  with  ‘Scalecide’  or  with  winter-strength  lime-sulfur 
in  dormancy  rarely  exhibited  more  than  one  specimen  to  the  bud. 
* * At  this  time  the  most  advanced  cluster  buds  showed 

the  first  green  leaves  separating  from  the  cluster,  and  the  young 
leaves  projecting  from  the  opening  buds  like  squirrel  ears  were 


SoAiK  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lick  ii 

very  common  everywhere  throughout  the  orchard.’’  It  is  thus 
seen  that  for  two  years  in  the  Barclay  orchard,  the  rosy  aphis 
hatched  after  the  leaves  began  to  emerge  from  the  buds  and  at 
a time  when  shelter  from  spraying  materials  could  be  had.  The 
second  generation  of  the  oat  aphis  developes  wings  and  migrates 
from  the  apple  to  various  grasses  (species  of  Poo).  Here  they 
breed  throughout  the  summer.  It  is  thought  that  they  pass  the 
winter  on  grains  and  grasses  and  do  not  return  to  the  apple 
until  the  second  fall.  At  any  rate,  in  the  fall  (late  September 
or  early  October)  winged  forms  of  this  species  begin  to  appear 
on  the  apple,  males  and  females  are  produced,  and  fertilized  eggs 
are  laid  on  the  tree.  Egg-laying  may  continue  until  December. 
The  species  may  be  found  laying  eggs  on  pear,  quince,  haw- 
thorne,  and  plum  trees. 

The  third  generation  of  the  rosy  aphis  is  winged  and  migrates 
from  the  trees  al30ut  the  middle  of  June  to  plantains,  where  it 
remains  throughout  the  summer,  returning  to  the  apple  in  late 
October  and  early  November.  Males  and  females  are  produced 
by  the  returned  migrants  and  fertilized  eggs  are  laid  to  pass  the 
winter. 

The  green  apple  aphis  lives  on  the  apple,  pear,  quince,  and 
hawthorne,  especially  the  first,  throughout  the  summer.  The 
winged  forms  seem  merely  to  spread  the  species  to  other  parts 
of  the  tree  or  to  other  trees.  In  the  fall  (October)  males  and 
females  are  produced  and  fertilized  eggs  are  laid  for  winter. 

\Vhen  the  eggs  are  first  laid  they  are  yellowish  in  color  and 
gradually  become  darker  until  they  assume  the  normal  shining 
black  appearance. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  apple  suffers  from  the  oat  and  the 
rosy  aphis  during  the  early  stages  of  fruit  production  only ; 
the  former  leaving  when  the  apples  are  just  well  set  and  the 
other  in  June.  The  green  aphis,  on  the  other  hand,  is  on  the 
trees  continuously  throughout  the  season.  ‘ 

Perhaps  the  most  puzzling  phase  of  the  aphis  problem  is  the 
fact  that  the  plant  lice  are  bad  one  year  and  hardly  noticeable 
the  next.  The  explanation  for  this  puzzle  appears  to  lie  in  the 
effect  of  the  weather  upon  the  aphids  and  their  natural  enemies. 

The  natural  enemies  of  apple  plant  lice  may  be  placed  in  two 
general  groups — the  parasitic  enemies,  which  usually  lay  their 
eggs  inside  the  body  of  the  aphid,  from  which  comes  a grub  that 
eventually  destroyes  the  aphid,  and  the  predaceous  enemies,  that 
attack,  kill  and  consume  the  lice.  The  principal  members  of  the 
first  group  belong  to  the  Hynicnoptcra,  or  the  group  of  bees,  ants 
and  wasps.  These  parasitic  forms  are  usually  very  small  and 
very  greatly  influenced  by  weather  conditions; 


12 


Bulletin  328 


The  elements  of  climate  which,  because  of  their  large  varia- 
tions, influence  insect  life  to  a great  extent,  are  temperature  and 
moisture,  especially  the  former.  It  is  therefore,  to  be  expected 
that  if  weather  has  anything  to  do  with  the  matter,  temperature 
and  moisture  must  be  playing  a large  part.  Perhaps  the  influence 
of  these  factors  upon  the  relation  existing  between  the  plant  lice 
and  their  natural  enemies  has  been  best  illustrated  by  a study  of 
Lysiphelbus  tritici,  a small  hymenopterous  (the  order  which  in- 
cludes the  bees,  ants  and  wasps)  parasite  of  Toxoptera  grami- 
num,  one  of  the  most  injurioiis  of  the  plant  lice  attacking  wheat 
and’  oats. 

Under  a constant  temperature  of  50°  F.  and  an  atmospheric 
moisture  ranging  from  75  to  100  per  cent,  43  days  were  required 
for  the  parasite  to  develop  from  egg  to  adult.  Furthermore, 
at  this  temperature,  the  number  of  healthy  young  produced  is 
gieatly  reduced,  in  fact  the  insect  hardly  reproduces  itself.  On 
the  other  hand,  under  a temperature  of  50°  F.  and  the  same 
atmospheric  moisture  the  louse  requires  24  days  from  birth  to 
maturity  and  reproduces,  once  that  stage  has  been  reached,  nearly 
one  young  a day  for  27  days. 

At  a temperature  of  70°  F.  the  parasite  can  complete  its  life 
cycle  in  10  days,  and  the  average  number  of  young  ones  from  a 
single  pair  of  parents  amounts  to  56.  This  means  that  in  one 
month  the  offspring  of  a single  pair  would  be  more  than  46,000. 
On  the  other  hand,  at  a temperature  of  70°  F.  the  louse  reaches 
maturity  in  9 days  and  produces  in  the  1 1 days  following  about 
29  young.  At  this  rate  in  one  month  a single  louse  would  pro- 
duce less  than  14,000  young. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  while  with  a low  temperature  the  lice  can 
carry  on  their  activities  practically  unhindered  by  the  parasite, 
the  advent  of  high  temperature  is  likely  to  be  followed  by  their 
destruction  bv  reason  of  the  greater  reproductive  power  of  the 
parasite. 

The  studies  of  the  effect  of  moisture  are  extremely  limited, 
but  such  evidence  as  has  been  collected  indicates  that  so  long 
as  the  atmosphere  is  not  too  dry  to  prevent  the  vigor  of  the  food 
plant  and  not  wet  enough  to  encourage  the  attack  of  parasitic 
fungi,  variations  in  atmospheric  moisture  have  little  effect  upon 
either  the  louse  or  its  parasite. 

No  studies  have  been  made  to  show  the  effect  of  climate  upon 
the  predaceous  enemies,  fl'he  lady-])ird  beetles  and  their  larvie 
are  the  only  inqiortant  forms  that  attack  the  lice  under  low 
temperatures  and  they  are  only  rarely  sufficiently  abundant  to 
])revent  an  outl)reak. 


SoiMK  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lick  13 

In  summing  up  the  meager  knowledge  at  hand  relative  to  the 
effect  of  climatic  conditions  on  the  abundance  of  plant  lice,  we 
may  say  that  a late  cool  spring  is  likely  to  show  a serious  attack 
of  these  insects,  while  an  early  warm  one  is  likely  to  show  few  of 
them.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  possible  that  a late  cool 
spring  might  not  be  accompanied  by  a plant  louse  outbreak  be- 
cause of  the  destructive  effect  of  a late  low  temperature,  or  the 
activity  of  lady-bird  beetles,  or  still  other  agencies  less  well 
understood. 

It  is  also  ciuite  possible  that  an  early  warm  spring  might  be 
accompanied  by  a plant  louse  pest  by  reason  of  an  earlier  reduc- 
tion of  the  parasite. 

Control 

Determining  Whether  Control  Measures  Are  Necessary 

In  view  of  the  facts  just  presented  showing  the  uncertainties 
of  aphis  outbreak,  the  first  problem  of  the  grower  is  to  determine 
whether  the  conditions  in  his  orchard  render  control  measures 
necessary.  If,  as  spring  approaches,  the  water  sprouts,  twigs  and 
smaller  branches  bear  no  aphis  eggs,  treatment  for  lice  is  un- 
necessary, for  there  will  not  be  sufficient  migration  from  ad- 
jacent orchards  to  create  an  infestation  in  the  first  half  of  the 
season.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  as  spring  approaches,  aphis  eggs 
are  present  on  the  water  sprouts,  twigs  and  smaller  branches, 
treatments  should  be  made  as  a matter  of  insurance  against 
damage. 

The  small  black  eggs  are  rather  inconspicuous  and  sharp  eyes 
are  required  to  find  the  first  ones.  After  the  grower  has  become 
familiar  with  their  appearance  he  can  pick  them  out  without 
difficulty. 


The  Problem 

When  the  eggs  are  present  the  problem  of  controlling  the 
various  species  of  apple  aphis  appears  to  involve  the  destruction 
of  the  specimens  on  the  trees  l^efore  they  have  a chance  to  do  the 
damage  to  fruit  and  foliage.  The  aphis  appears  on  the  trees  in 
the  fall  (October  and  November),  and  eggs  laid  by  them  carry 
over  the  winter  until  l)ud-opening  time.  The  aphis  must  be 
attacked  just  before  or  during  egg-laying  in  the  fall,  or  while 
still  in  the  form  of  the  egg  resting  on  the  bark  of  the  tree,  or  in 
the  spring  as  a nymph  that  has  just  hatched. 


14 


Bulletin  328 


Destroying  the  Aphis  in  the  Fall 

In  the  fall  the  return  of  the  aphis  usually  covers  a considerable 
period.  In  the  late  fall  shining  black  eggs,  immature  yellowish 
eggs  and  adult  aphids  are  found  on  the  same  twig.  Anything 
short  of  several  sprayings  would  seem  to  be  doomed  to  failure  as 
a method  of  control. 

Destroying  the  Aphis  in  the  Egg  S^tage 

Throughout  the  winter  and  early  spring  the  eggs  remain  on 
the  tree,  open  to  attack,  and  this  .would  seem  to  be  the  logical 
time  to  compass  their  destruction.  Many  efforts  have  been  made 
to  find  a substance  which  would  destroy  the  aphis  egg,  not  harm 
the  tree,  and  sell  for  a price  that  would  not  prohibit  its  use.  It 
can  truthfully  be  said  that  up  to  the  present  time  no  such  sub- 
stance has  been  given  to  the  public. 

During  the  winter  and  spring  of  1917,  Dr.  Peterson  made  a 
preliminary  study  of  the  egg  and  of  the  effects  of  certain 
chemicals  upon  it.  He  found  that  the  egg  envelope  exhibits  at 
least  two  layers — an  outer  semi-transparent  brittle  envelope  ( glu- 
tinous when  the  egg  is  first  deposited ) and  an  inner  pigmented 
elastic  membrane.  A third  layer  may  be  seen  as  the  nymph 
hatches,  but  this  is  probably  the  first-cast  skin  of  the  nymph. 
The  outer  layer  appears  to  exercise  a protective  function, 
resisting  strains  and  stresses  and  retarding  evaporation  of 
the  l)ody  fiuids.  The  fact  that  this  transparent  layer  encloses 
the  pigmented  layer  leads  one  to  suspect  that,  like  the  jelly  on  a 
frog’s  egg,  it  may  keep  the  egg  warm  by  transmitting  the  sun’s 
rays  and  retaining  the  heat  into  which  they  are  transformed  by 
the  pigment. 

Sometime  before  hatching,  the  period  ranging  from  two  to 
thirty  days,  the  outer  layer  splits  along  the  median  line,  exposing 
the  ])igmented  layer,  and  the  egg  is  thereafter  very  sensitive  to 
weather  ( dry  air  particularly ) and  insecticides. 

Tn  the  course  of  his  experiments.  Dr.  Peterson  found  that  the 
eggs  were  strongly  affected  by  carbolic  acid  and  by  winter- 
strength  lime-sulfur.  He  found  that  the  carbolic  acid  appeared 
to  soften  the  outer  brittle  layer  in  such  a fashion  that  the  egg 
soon  shriveled,  while  the  lime-sulfur  appeared  to  harden  it  and 
to  i)revent  hatching. 

Table  I,  taken  from  Dr.  lAterson’s  work,  will  serve  to  show 
the  effect  of  our  common  sprays  upon  the  eggs  and  to  indicate 
some  substances  worthy  of  further  trial.  The  table  is  the  sum- 
mary of  a large  series  of  exi)eriments.  The  ipercentage  killed  is 


Some  Important  Orchard  Peant  Lick  15 

determined  on  the  assumption  that  only  that  percentage  of  the 
total  number  would  hatch  which  did  hatch  in  the  lots  laid  aside 
as  checks  and  not  treated  with  any  substance  in  any  way. 

Table  I 

effect  of  sprays  on  aphis  eggs 

Proportion  Killed 


Materials  U sed  cent 

Lime-sulfur,  1-8  or  1-9  85-100 

Lime-sulfur,  1-8  plus  “Black  Leaf  40,’’  1-500  97 

“Black  Leaf  40,”  1-500  plus  laundry  soap,  2 lb.  to  50  gal.  . . 45 

Laundry  Soap,  “Pels  Naptha,”  2 lb.  to  50  gal 5-33 

“Scalecide,”  1-15  25-65 

“Mechling’s  Scale  Oil,”  1-19  79-90 

Sodium  Sulfocarbonate,  1-19  85 

Sodium  Chloride,  i gm.*  to  5 cc.**  water  26-35 

Sodium  Hydroxide,  2 pt.  to  98  cc.  water  85-95 

Crude  Carbolic  Acid  (100%),  2 cc.  to  98  cc.  of  solution, 
plus  soap,  2 lb.  to  50  gal.  water  93-ioo 


* gm. — gram. 

**  cc. — cubic  centimeters. 

Several  important  facts  stand  out  in  this  table.  The  deadly 
quality  of  lime-sulfur  is  increased  by  the  addition  of  40  per  cent 
nicotine.  “Scalecide”  is  much  less  effective  than  lime-sulfur 
alone.  “Scalecide,”  in  which  we  are  assured  there  is  no  car- 
bolic acid,  is  much  less  effective  than  “Mechling’s  Scale  Oil,” 
in  which,  according  to  the  makers,  is  found  a percentage  of 
carbolic  acid.  The  great  efficiency  of  a 2 per  cent  crude  car- 
bolic acid  solution  to  which-  soap  has  been  added  is  shown. 

In  the  present  stage  of  knowledge  none  of  the  substances  can 
be  recommended  for  the  destruction  of  the  eggs  during  dor- 
mancy, but  the  prospects  for  the  development  of  such  a spray 
seem  encouraging.  It  can  be  said,  however,  that  the  study 
points  to  the  idea  that  an  application  of  the  lime-sulfur  and 
tobacco  mixture  at  the  green  bud  stage,  even  if  not  all  of  the 
eggs  have  hatched,  is  likely  to  give  control  by  reason  of  the 
destruction  of  the  unhatched  eggs  as  well  as  the  newly-hatched 
nymphs. 

Destroying  the  Aphis  in  the  Spring  and  Sununer 

In  the  spring,  when  first  hatched,  the  young  nymphs  are  very 
delicate,  and,  consequently,  very  susceptible  to  the  effect  of 
spraying  mixtures.  This  led  investigators  to  place  reliance  on 
spring  and  summer  spraying  as  a means  of  controlling  the 


Bulletin  328 


16 

species.  Unfortunately,  several  years  of  experience  have  demon- 
strated for  the  rosy  louse,  at  least,  that  an  attempt  to  control  it 
after  the  foliage  has  been  curled  is  sure  to  fail,  and  that  an 
attempt  to  control  it  after  the  buds  have  really  opened  is  almost 
certain  to  fail.  The  period  in  the  spring  when  all  three  species 
can  be  brought  under  control  has  been  thought  to  be  very  short, 
and  was  thought  to  extend  from  the  hatching  of  the  egg  to  the 
opening  of  the  buds.  The  problem  was  further  complicated  by 
the  fact  that  the  eggs  of  the  rosy  aphis  hatched,  in  some  cases, 
coincidently  with  the  opening  of  the  early  buds. 


Table  2 

EFFECT  OF  nicotine  SPRAYS  ON  ROSY  APHIS 


Number  of 
leaves 

Treatment 

Percentage 
living  at  end 
of  experiment 

2 

Water 

only 

100 

2 

“Black 

Leaf  40"  (i  part)  + water  (900  parts) 

60 

2 

“Black 

Leaf  40”  (i  part)  + water  (900  I arts) 

10 

+ soap  (2  lbs.  to  50  gal.) 


2 i“Black  Leaf  40”  (i  part)  + water  (700  parts) 

. 4-  soap  (2  lbs.  to  50  gal.) 

i 

2 ‘Black  Leaf  40”  (i  part)  + water  (500  parts) 

10 

2 1 ‘Black  Leaf  40”  (i  part)  -f  water  (500  parts) 

0 

j + soap  (2  11)S.  to  50  gal.) 

In  1915  Parrott  and  Hodgkiss^  recommended  the  delay  of  the 
usual  winter-strength  lime-sulfur,  to  which  40  per  cent  nicotine 
has  been  added  at  the  rate  of  of  a pint  to  100  gallons,  or 
about  I part  of  nicotine  to  1,000  parts  of  the  spraying  mixture, 
and  the  application  of  the  mixture  at  the  green  bud  stage.  In 
1915  one  of  our  liest  apple  growers  almost  completely  failed  to 
obtain  control  of  aphis  by  adding  nicotine  to  his  pink-bud  or 
cluster-cup  s])ray  at  the  rate  of  i to  800,  while  another  claimed 
perfect  control  by  adding  the  40  per  cent  nicotine  to  the  same 
spray  at  the  rate  of  i to  500.  To  discover  the  strength  of  nico- 
tine necessary  for  a complete  kill  of  all  ages  of  the  rosy  aphis, 
which  has  seemed  more  resistant  to  spraying  solutions  than 
either  of  the  others,  the  experiment  recorded  in  table  2 was  made. 


M^arrott,  P.  J.,  and  llodgkiss,  H.  E..  IQLS-  Controlling  plant  lice  in  apple 
orchards.  N.  (Geneva)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bid.  402. 


SoMK  Important  Orchard  Pdant  Lice 


17 


Thus  it  appears  that  even  when  used  with  soap,  which  seems 
to  give  to  it  the  maximum  killing  strength  for  aphis,  i part  of 
the  nicotine  to  500  parts  of  water  was  required  to  give  a com- 
plete kill. 

This  suggested  a number  of  points  that  needed  clearing  up, 
such  as : 

1.  To  what  extent  in  comparison  with  other  treatments 
does  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  effect  a control  when 
applied  during  dormancy  and  before  the  eggs  have 
hatched  ? 

2.  To  what  extent  will  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  ap- 
plied at  the  green  bud  stage  just  after  the  lice  hatch 
effect  a control  ? 

3.  To  what  extent  is  the  combination  of  winter-strength 
lime-sulfur  and  40  per  cent  nicotine  at  the  rate  of  500 
to  I superior  to  a combination  at  the  rate  of  1,000  to  i ? 

4.  To  what  extent  would  a winter-strength  lime-sulfur 
treatment  before  the  lice  hatch,  followed  by  an  extra 
treatment  of  nicotine  and  soap  just  after  the  lice  hatch, 
prove  effective?  This  point  was  considered  because  of 
the  fact  that  in  1915  the  hatching  of  the  rosy  aphis 
was  thought  to  have  occurred  after  the  buds  opened. 

5.  To  what  extent  would  Scaiecide  (for  which  claims 
have  been  made)  serve  as  a control? 

In  1916  experiments  were  planned  to  answer  these  questions. 
They  were  located  on  the  farm  of  Mr.  John  Barclav,  of  Cran- 
bury.  Mr.  Barclay  made  all  the  applications  according  to 
schedule,  and  the  quality  of  the  spray  coatings  given  by  him 
could  not  be  bettered.  The  trees  were  seven  years  old  and  very 
thrifty. 

The  plan  of  the  experiments  follows: 


Pi. AN  I'OR  Aphis  Experiment  in  the  Apple  Orchard  oe  Mr.  John  Barclay,  Near  Cranbury,  New  Jersey 


i8 


Bulletin  328 


Pi 


g S 

oj  x; 


tfi  t«  PQ 


fno  s -n  o 

Q O § 


^ c 

G 

03 

£ c 
>.  u 
■*-' 

to  B 


tv 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

No. 

1 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

VO 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

No. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

North 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

South 

10 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

No. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

No. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

. X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

6 

.X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

1 

X 

No. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

! 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

w i 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

6 

A 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

! I 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Is^lg 

03X  3^3  tin 
w > X cn  b£ 
Ol 


<u  £ 

-3 


■ Si  M 03 

g.ss 


cn  o !U  <u 
^X  <u 
2^  ^ & 


=3pH  O 

C/5  V,  -M  CO 

i'-  ^ 

E+Ci 

>-r 

c c 

o '3J  CJ 
rf^  O 

2m-(  ^ tuO 
rt 

3pq2 

t«  - C/) 

S+C^ 

2r 

(n 

0\'3 

3 

O ^ 


S 3-3 

^ (U  > 
tn 

Oj  o 

E 

'J 


z ^ y 


V 


■5 

tn  .3  6 - -^  "- 


E 3 E , 

3-0  3:  +'■ 


® 5 

•*"  E 
. . E 3- 


■3 


<u 

O OS  5 

'"Mo 

X 

■_L.  O (fi 
~ lO 

03 


S-03 

>2  o . 

tC^  ^ ^ 

2.5  « £ g 

^ 3m  o " 

_E3:  2'-'  ^ M 

12 


Table  3 

Effect  of  Different  Treatments  in  Aphis  Controe  Experiment 


Some  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lice 


19 


Table  4 

Eeeect  ol  Different  Treatments  in  Aphis  Control  Experiment 


when  the  buds  showed  green 


Some  Important  Orchard  Prant  Lick 


21 


For  the  purpose  of  makino-  a comparison  of  the  results  given 
in  the  preceding  tables  easy,  table  5 is  submitted. 

Table  5 

Summary  of  Results  in  Aphis  Control  Experiment 


Plot 

Numbers 

1 

TREATMENT  I 

! 

Total  number 
of  buds 
examined 

Total  number 
of  aphis 
found 

Number  of 
aphis  per 
100  buds 

I & I 

Lime-sulfur  (i  to  9)  during  dor- 
mancy; “Black  Leaf  40”  (i  to 
1,000)  -|-  soap  (2  lbs.  to  50  gal.) 
when  buds  showed  green 

281 

.S 

1-7 

Lime-sulfur  (i  to  9)  during  dor- 
1 mancy;  lime-sulfur  (i  to  9)  + 

“Black  Leaf  40”  (i  to  1,000)  when 
buds  showed  green 

282 

18 

6.3 

3 3 

Lime-sulfur  (i  to  9)  when  the  buds 
showed  green 

320 

304 

j 

95. 

‘ 4 & 4 

Lime-sulfur  (i  to  9)  + “Black  Leaf 
40”  (i  to  500)  when  buds  showed 
green 

339 

1 1 

3-2 

5 & 5 

Lime-sulfur  (i  to  9)  + “Black  Leaf 
40“  (i  to  1,000)  when  buds  showed 
green 

331 

156 

47.1 

6 & 6 

Scalecide  (i  to  15)  while  buds  were 
dormant 

306 

1 

37 

' 12. 

7 

Scalecide  (i  to  15)  when  the  buds 
showed  green 

303 

9 

1 

j 2.9 

1 

1 

— Unsprayed  trees  showed  average  of  600  aphis  per  100  huds. 

. ti  block  of  trees  of  the  same  age  and  variety  in  the  same  orchard  were  sprayed 

with  lirne-sulfur  (i  to  9)  during  dormancy.  These  trees  showed  an  average  of  6 aphis 
to  100  buds. 


Lime-sulfur  when  applied  during  dormancy  seems  greatly  to 
reduce  the  aphis,  causing  the  number  to  fall  from  about  600 
aphis  per  100  buds  to  6 aphis  to  100  buds.  Lime-sulfur  when 
applied  in  the  green-bud  stage,  after  the  hatching  of  the  lice, 
made  a much  smaller  reduction,  causing  the  number  to  fall 
from  600  per  100  buds  to  about  95  per  100  buds. 

The  combination  of  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  and  “Black 
Leaf  40  ’ at  the  rate  of  500  tO'  i is  more  effective  than  the  com- 
bination at  the  rate  of  i,ooO’  tO'  i,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
former  reduces  the  aphis  to  3 individuals  to  each  loC'  buds  while 
the  latter  left  47  lice  to  each  100  buds. 


BUI^I.KTIN  328 


I'ig.  4.  'Prccs  nf)t  proiierly  sprayed  for  ajihis  : note  small  apples  and 

(lro])ped  apples 


SoMK  Important  Orchard  1’dant  Lick 


Trees  properly  sprayed  for  aphis:  note  fine  foliage,  large  fruit,  and  absence  of  dropped  apples 


*24 


Bui.r^ETiN  328 


The  application  of  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  during  dor- 
mancy followed  by  “Black  Leaf  40”  and  soap  at  the  green-bud 
stage  just  after  the  lice  had  hatched  seemed  very  effective,  leav- 
ing only  2 lice  to  each  100  buds. 

Scalecide  when  used  during  dormancy  scorched  the  buds,  and 
when  used  during  the  green-bud  stage,  after  the  lice  hatched, 
killed  50  per  cent  of  the  buds.  In  both  cases  it  reduced  the 
number  of  lice. 

Thus  it  appears  that  until  methods  of  destroying  the  egg  dur- 
ing donuaney  are  better  developed,  the  best  aphis  treatment  from 
the  standpoint  of  labor,  safety  and  eiheiency  is  an  application  of 
zuinter-strength  lime-sulfur,  to  zvhich  40  per  cent  nicotine  has 
been  added  at  the  rate  of  i to  500  at  the  green-bud  stage. 
Under  this  system  no  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  or  soluble- 
oil  treatment  is  ordinarily  required,  and  the  normal  labor  of 
orchard  procedure  increased  only  slightly. 

The  one  question  remaining  in  the  writer’s  mind  after  the 
experiment  of  1916  was  whether,  if  the  advancement  of  the 
trees  should  compel  treatment  before  hatching,  the  eggs  would 
not  later  hatch  a damaging  brood  of  lice.  The  laboratory  work 
of  Dr.  Peterson  in  1917,  already  mentioned,  indicated  that  the 
unhatched  eggs  would  be  destroyed.  Fortunately,  there  was 
opportunity  to  try  this  out  on  a field  scale. 

When  the  oat  aphis  appeared  on  the  buds  Mr.  Barclay  sprayed 
a block  of  trees  with  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  to  which  “Black 
Leaf  40”  had  been  added  at  the  rate  of  i to  500.  At  the  same 
time  an  adjacent  block  was  sprayed  with  Scalecide  (i  to  15). 
On  the  first  block  practically  no  aphis  appeared  thereafter,  and 
trees  were  almost  entirely  free  from  aphis  work.  On  the  sec- 
ond block,  although  only  a few  living  aphis  could  be  found  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  day  when  the  spray  was  applied,  colonies 
of  the  rosy  louse  appeared  later,  curled  the  foliage  and  did  much 
damage  to  the  fruit. 

No  one  knows  how  many  aphis  per  lOO'  buds  may  be  kft  un- 
hurt and  the  crop  escape  injury.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  num- 
1)er  which  may  safely  be  left  this  year  might  next  year  be  suffi- 
cient to  i^roduce  large  damage,  so  much  depends  upon  the 
weather  and  the  natural  enemies  of  the  lice.  The  only  safe  plan 
to  follow  is  to  kill  as  many  of  the  lice  as  possible.  This  means 
the  application  of  the  recommended  treatment  zvith  the  utmost 
thoroughness,  for  neither  lice  nor  eggs  zvill  be  destroyed  unless 
they  arc  zvcll  covered. 

Assuming  that  the  best  practicable  treatment  for  aphis,  with 
our  present  knowledge,  is  the  a]>plication  of  lime-sulfur  and 


Some  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lice 


Fig.  6.  Stages  in  bud  development.  The  best  time  to  spray  for  aphis 
is  the  period  from'  / to  //;  III  illustrates  later  development 


20  IjULI^KTIN  328 

nicotine  in  such  a fashion  that  all  the  lice  and  lice  eggs  are 
coated,  the  cjiiestion  of  the  time  of  application  becomes  exceed- 
ingly important.  It  seems  clear  from  the  laboratory  and  field 
studies  that  the  green-bud  stage  is  the  best,  because  at  that  time 
the  maximum  number  of  lice  will  have  hatched  and  are  without 
shelter,  and  the  unhatched  eggs  are  most  susceptible. 

The  term  “green-bud  stage”  is  rather  elastic  and  somewhat 
difficult  to  define.  When  the  bud  scales  first  separate  at  the  tip 
the  parts  exposed  are  silvery  and  only  slightly  green.  The  sil- 
very look  is  due  to  the  presence  of  a heavy  pubescence  on  the 
structures  exposed.  In  the  course  of  a very  few  days  this  silvery 
look  gives  way  to  a decided  green  as  the  edges  of  the  leaves  be- 
gin to  project.  Treatment  should  be  completed  by  the  time  the 
latter  stage  has  been  reached,  for  the  next  stage,  which  may  fol- 
low within  a single  warm  day  and  night,  and  shows  the  young 
leaves  projecting  from  the  buds  like  squirrel  ears,  is  not  only 
liable  to  be  injured  by  the  treatment,  but  offers  shelter  to  the 
lice. 


Conclusions 

1.  Three  species  of  plant  lice — green  apple  aphis,  the  rosy 
apple  aphis  and  the  oat  aphis,  especially  the  first  two — attack  the 
foliage  and  fruit  of  apple  in  New  Jersey  and  are  capable  under 
favorable  conditions  of  destroying  a large  percentage  of  the 
crop. 

2.  All  species  winter  over  on  the  water  sprouts,  twigs,  and 
smaller  branches  of  the  apple  trees  as  small  shining  black  oval 
eggs  just  large  enough  to  be  seen  with  the  naked  eye. 

3.  While  it  is  not  possible  to  forecast  an  outbreak  with  cer- 
tainty, even  when  the  eggs  are  on  the  trees,  because  of  the  effect 
of  weather  and  natural  enemies,  preparations  should  be  made  for 
treatment  as  a matter  of  insurance  if  the  eggs  are  present. 

4.  Control  by  destruction  of  returning  migrants  and  egg- 
laying  individuals  in  the  fall  is  probably  impracticable,  l>ecause 
of  the  numl)er  of  si)rayings  that  would  be  necessary. 

5.  'fhe  i>robability  of  developing  a method  of  control  by 
destroying  the  eggs  during  dormancy  seems  strong,  but  in  the 
present  state  of  knowledge  it  should  not  be  depended  on. 

6.  Control  by  destroying  the  aphis  after  the  leaves  are  pretty 
well  unfolded  is  likely  to  prove  impracticable  because  of  the 
shelter  which  the  leaves  afford  the  lice. 

7.  The  most  practicable  treatment  for  aphis  control  is  the 
api)licaticn  of  winter-strength  lime-sulfur  to  which  40  per  cent 


Some  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lici-:  27 

nicotine  has  been  added  at  the  rate  of  1 to  500,  during  the 
green-bud  stage,  because  the  inaximuin  nuinl)er  of  lice  will  be 
hatched  at  that  time  ( and  will  be  killed  by  the  nicotine)  and  the 
unhatched  eggs  will  be  in  their  most  sensitive  state  (and  will 
be  destroyed  by  the  mixture). 

8.  The  gTeen-bud  stage  is  that  stage  of  development  which 
just  precedes  the  escape  of  the  new  leaves  from  the  dower  buds 
in  such  a fashion  as  to  resemble  squirrel  ears. 


New  Jersey 


Agricultural  Experiment  Stations 


BULLETIN  329 


("Farm  Management  Bulletin  4J 


On  a Commercial  Poultry  Plant  in  New  Jersey 


PROFITS  AND  FACTORS  INFLUENCING  PROFITS 
ON  150  POULTRY  FARMS  IN 
NEW  JERSEY 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  AfiRICULTlRAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS* 

NEW  BRUNSWICK.  N.  J. 


STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 


BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 


His  Excellency  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County  Name 

Atlantic  William  A.  Blair 
Bergen  Arthur  Lozier 
Burlington  R.  R.  Lippincott 
Camden  Ephraim  T.  Gill 
Cape  May  Charles  Vanaman 
Cumberland  Charles  F.  Seabrook 
Essex  Zenos  G.  Crane 

Gloucester  Wilbur  Beckett 
Hudson  Diedrich  Bahrenburg 
Hunterdon  Egbert  T.  Bush 
Mercer  Josiah  T.  Allinson 


Address 
Elwood 
Ridgewood 
Vincentown 
Haddonfield 
Dias  Creek 
Bridgeton 
Caldwell 
Swedesboro 
Union  Hill 
Stockton 
Yardville 


County 

Middlesex 

Monmouth 

Morns 

Ocean 

Passaic 

Salem 

Somerset 

Sussex 

Union 

Warren 


Name 

James  Neilson 
William  H.  Reid 
John  C.  Welsh 
Joseph  Sapp 
Isaac  A.  Serven 
Charles  R.  Hires 
Joseph  Larocque 
Robert  V.  Armstrong 
John  Z.  Hatfield 
James  I.  Cooke 


Address 
New  Bruns’k 
Tennent 
Ger’n  Valley 
Tuckerton 
Clifton 
Salem 

Bernardsville 

Augusta 
Scotch  Plains 
Delaware 


STAFF. 


Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc 

Hazel  H.  Moran 

Frank  App,  B.Sc Agronomist. 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.Sc. . .Associate  Agronomist. 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

Harry  C.  McLean,  Ph.D.  .Chemist  Soil  Res’h. 
William  M.  Regan.  A. M.  .Dairy  Husbandman. 
Forest  Button,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 
John  Hill,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman, 

Thomas  J.  HeadleE,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc., 

Acting  Horticulturist. 


Director. 

Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

Editor. 

Assistant  Librarian. 

Vincent  J.  BreazEale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing. 
Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 
William  Schieeerstein,  ..Orchard  Foreman. 
Lyman  G.  SchermErhorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 

H.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.AGr.,  Poultry  Husbandman, 
t Willard  C.  Thompson,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

George  H.  Pound,  B.Sc.,  ..Poultry  Assistant. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

Elmer  H.  WEnE Poultry  Foreman. 

John  P.  Helyar,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B.  . . . Asst.  Seed  Analyst, 
t On  leave  of  absence  for  military  service. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 


The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 


W.  H.  S.  DEM.\REST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS ^’ew  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN,  , Raritan. 

J.  AMORY  IIASKEIJv,  Red  Bank. 

STAFF. 


JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B. 

John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.Sc Assistant  in  Botany. 

Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding. 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.D Asst.  Entomologist. 


Director. 

Chief  Clerk. 

Augusta  E'.  Meske.  ...  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 
Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D  ....  Plant  Pathologist. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
.^uGusTINE  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
vSelman  A.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 
Cyrus  WitmEr.  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


Staff  list  revised  to  October  lo,  1918. 


NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIOr^ 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 
AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Alva  Agee,  M.Sc.,  Director. 

Mrs.  Frank  App,  Assistant  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Deader. 

Victor  G.  Aubry,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Superintend- 
ent and  State  Leader  of  Farm  Demonstra- 
tion. 

John  W.  Bartlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fertility 
and  Agronomy. 


Marjory  Eells,  D.S.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

Edna  Gulick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 

William  H.  Hamilton,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  State 
Leader  of  County  Demonstration. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

Van  E.  Leavitt,  Specialist,  Fruit  Growing. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruil 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc.,  Editor. 


H.  E.  Baldinger,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Sussex  County. 

William  P.  Brodie^  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent,  Salem  County. 

Frank  A.  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County. 

Laura  V.  Clark,  A.B.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Newark. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Ellwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent,  Monmouth  County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  foi 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  A.  Hofeman,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent,  Morris  County. 


William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra^ 
tion  Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

Philip  F.  Keil,  Demonstration  Agent  for  Bur- 
lington County. 

May  D.  Kemp,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

L.  F.  Merrill,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for  Ber- 
gen County. 

Adelia  F.  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cumberland  County. 

Lena  R.  Pierce,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator 
for  Cape  May  County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  WettyEn,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction,  7 

The  Poultry  Industry,  8 

Advantages  of  New  Jersey  as  a Poultry  State,  10 

Markets,  10 

Climate,  12 

Soils,  12 

Established  Business,  12 

Description  of  Poultry  Areas  in  New  Jersey,  13 

Vineland,  13 

Lakewood,  15 

Sussex,  15 

Poultry  Associations,  16 

Vineland,  16 

Hammonton,  17 

Lakewood,  18 

Tri-State,  18 

Flock  Practice,  18 

Breeders,  18 

Hatching  Eggs,  19 

Incubation,  19 

Brooding,  20 

Colony  Houses,  21 

Pullets,  21 

Yearlings,  21 

Cockerels,  22 

The  Laying  Flock,  23 

Size  of  Flock,  23 

Housing,  23 

Trap-nesting 24 

Feeding,  24 

Ranges,  25 

Succulent  Crops,  26 

Methods  of  Study, 26 

Breeds  of  Poultry,  27 

Poultry  Farms  included  in  the  Survey, 28 

Farm  Tenure,  28 

Capital,  ^9 

Amount  of  Capital  and  Distribution,  30 

Amount  of  Capital  and  Labor  Income,  31 

Return  on  Capital  Invested 32 

Size,  33 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Labor  Income,  33 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Farm  Organization,  35 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Receipts  and  Expenses,  39 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Investment,  43 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  the  Number  of  Years  the  Operator  has 

been  in  the  Poultry  Business,  44 

Production,  45 

Relation  of  Production  to  Profits,  45 

Relation  of  Production  to  Expenses  and  Receipts,  48 

(4) 


CONTENTS 


Production — Continued.  page 

Relation  o£  Production  to  Investment,  55 

Relation  of  Production  to  the  Experience  of  the  Operator,  56 

Experience,  57 

Former  Occupations  of  Poultrymen,  58 

Relation  of  Experience  to  Profits 58 

Relation  of  Experience  to  Farm  Organization,  60 

Relation  of  Experience  to  Receipts  and  Expenses,  61 

Fifty  Years  a Poultryman 63 

Pullets  vs.  Yearlings,  63 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Profits,  63 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Receipts  and  Ex- 
penses,   64 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Capital  Invested  and 

Experience,  66 

Area  of  Poultry  Farms,  67 

Relation  of  Area  to  Profits  and  Capital,  68 

Relation  of  Area  to  Production,  Receipts  and  Expenses,  69 

Monthly  Egg  Production  and  Per  Cent  of  Total  Receipts  per  Month,  ...  71 

Cost  of  Egg  Production,  73 

Depreciation  of  Hens,  74 

Itemized  Costs  and  Receipts,  75 

Comparative  Efficiency  of  Animals  and  Poultry,  78 

Major  Factors  Essential  for  Success  in  Poultry  Raising,  80 

Two  Essentials  for  Success  in  Commercial  Poultry  Raising, 80 

Poultry  Raising  Compared  with  Other  Types  of  Farming  and  their 

Possibilities,  81 

Summary,  82 

Acknowledgment,  84 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

, PE ATE S 

PAGE 

Peate  I 85 

Fig.  I.  Modern  poultry  plant  in  the  Vineland  area,  showing  buildings. 

Fig.  2.  Modern  colony  houses  with  the  ranges  in  the  Vineland  area. 

Peate  2 86 

Fig.  I.  Typical  brooding  scene  in  Vineland  area,  showing  coal  stove 
brooders  which  are  used  almost  universally. 

Fig.  2.  Laying  houses  of  one  of  the  pioneer  poultrymen  in  the  Vine- 
land  area. 

Peate  3 87 

Fig.  I.  Common  arrangement  of  a long  laying  house  located  in  the 
center  of  a peach  orchard. 

Fig.  2.  Laying  houses  in  the  Vineland  area,  showing  the  range. 

Peate  4 38 

Fig.  I.-  Range  houses  in  the  Vineland  area. 

Fig.  2.  A method  commonly  used  in  marketing  in  the  Vineland  area. 

The  eggs  are  taken  to  the  trolley  express  in  wheelbarrows. 


6 


CONTiiNTS 


TEXT  FIGURES 

PAGE 

Fig.  I.  Map  of  New  Jersey  showing  Areas  in  which  the  Survey  was 

made,  

Fig.  2.  Relation  of  Capital  to  Eabor  Income  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in 

New  Jersey,  32 

Fig.  3.  Relation  of  Number  of  Fowls  per  Flock  to  Labor  Income  on 

150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  35 

Fig.  4.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Labor  Expense  on  150  Poultry 

Farms  in  New  Jersey,  37 

Fig.  5.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Equipment  Investment  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  39 

Fig.  6.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Building  Investment  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  40 

Fig.  7.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Expenses  on  150  Poultry  Farms 

in  New  Jersey 43 

Fig.  8.  Relation  of  Egg  Production  per  Hen  to  Labor  Income  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  47 

Fig.  9.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Expense  per  Bird  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  50 

Fig.  10.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Months’  Labor  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  51 

Fig.  II.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Feed  Cost  per  Bird  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey,  52 

Fig.  12.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Feed  Cost  on  150  Poultry 

Farms  in  New  Jersey,  53 

Fig.  13.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Receipts  on  150  Poultry 

Farms  in  New  Jerse}',  54 

Fig.  14.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Poultry  Equipment  on  150 

Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey, 56 

Fig.  15.  Relation  of  Years’  Experience  to  Labor  Income  on  150  Poultry 

Farms  in  New  Jersey,  60 

Fig.  16.  Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Labor  Income 

on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey, 65 

Fig.  17.  Monthly  Egg  Production  and  Gross  Receipts  per  Farm,  72 

Fig.  18.  Per  cent  of  Total  Yearly  Egg  Production  and  Total  Yearly 

Egg  Receipts  by  Months  per  Farm,  73 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS 


BULLETIN  329 

March  15,  1918 

Profits  and  Factors  Influencing  Profits  on  150 
Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


Frank  App 
Appen  G.  Wappkr 
Harry  R.  Lewis 


Introduction 

In  recent  years  there  has  been  a stimulation  of  interest  in  the 
business  side  of  farming.  Farm  management  departments  have 
been  making  farm  surveys,  but  most  of  these  were  made  from 
dairy  and  general  farms.  Farm  types,  as  such,  have  not  been  the 
subject  of  much  investigation.  This  is  the  fourth  publication  of 
the  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  on  farm  types. 
New  Jersey  has  very  diverse  interests  and  the  types  of  farming 
in  most  cases  are  clearly  defined.  This  affords  an  excellent 
opportunity  to  study  different  phases  of  agriculture  and  their 
requirements  for  success. 

This  is  a study  of  150  poultry  farms  whose  receipts  and  ex- 
penses were  almost  exclusively  from  and  for  poultry,  for  the 
year  November  i,  1915,  to  November  i,  1916.  Of  this  number 
1 16  records  were  obtained  from  the  Vineland  area  in  Cumber- 
land County,  22  from  the  vicinity  of  Lakewood  and  12  from  the 
northwestern  part  of  Sussex  County,  along  the  Delaware  River. 

Though  these  farms  were  not  all  located  in  one  continuous 
area,  the  methods,  buildings,  breed  of  chickens  and  the  rations 
used  on  the  farms  in  the  different  areas,  were  about  the  same. 
This  allows  the  combining  of  farms  not  in  one  continuous 


8 


bulletin  329 

locality  without  giving  results  that  are  misleading  or  not  repre- 
sentative of  the  business. 

The  Poultry  Industry 

Poultry  will  become  more  prominent  in  our  agriculture  and  on 
the  individual  farm  as  our  population  increases.  The  total  num- 
ber of  fowls  in  the  United  States  reported  by  the  thirteenth 
census  (1910)  was  295,880,190,  an  increase  of  17  per  cent  above 
the  number  reported  for  the  twelfth  census  (1900).  This  is  an 
average  of  about  3 fowls  per  man,  woman  and  child.  The  pro- 
duction of  eggs  by  these  fowls  was  reported  as  1,293,662,000 
dozen,  an  increase  of  23  per  cent  over  that  of  the  twelfth  census. 
The  population  for  this  period  increased  but  21  per  cent.  Thus 
our  hens  appear  to  be  laying  more  eggs  and  probably  are  receiv- 
ing more  care.  This  would  be  a production  of  about  5.3  dozen 
per  fowl,  or  about  14  dozen  per  individual.  However,  all  of 
these  eggs  are  not  consumed;  some  are  needed  for  hatching, 
and  5,207,151  dozen  of  these  were  exported.  During  this  period 
238,650  dozen  were  imported.  In  1915,  the  United  States  ex- 
ported 20,784,424  dozen  eggs,  while  the  imports  for  the  same 
year  were  3,046,631  dozen.  Thus  we  are  increasing  our  exports 
over  imports  annually. 

It  was  estimated^  that  in  1914  the  total  value  of  eggs  produced 
in  the  United  States  was  $350,000,000.  Add  to  this  the  value  of 
fowls  raised  and  the  sum  would  be  about  $570,000,000.  This 
exceeded  the  value  of  our  oats  crop,  and  nearly  ecpialed  the 
value  of  the  wheat  crop  for  1914. 

In  1909  and  1910  New  Jersey  sold  poultry  products  valued  at 
$4,666,000,  or  8 per  cent  of  the  value  of  all  agricultural  products. 
The  United  States  sold  $256,042,000,  or  3 per  cent  of  the  total 
value  of  agricultural  products.  Thus  New  Jersey  has  a rela- 
tively more  important  poultry  industry  than  most  of  the  other 
states.  Of  this  amount  54  per  cent  was  received  from  eggs  and  46 
per  cent  from  fowls. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  poultry  industry  tends  to 
develop  around  large  centers  of  population.  This  is  due  to  the 
better  facilities  for  selling  eggs  and  poultry.  Climate  may  have 
some  effect  upon  the  industry,  but  probably  not  so  much  as  good 
markets  for  chickens  and  eggs.  The  southern  states  show  a 


* U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1912.  p.  19. 


9 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 

relatively  less  important  poultry  industry.  Two  factors  affect 
the  poultry  industry  in  the  South : first,  large  markets  are  not 
at  hand  and  second,  the  climate  is  too  warm  for  poultry. 

New  Jersey,  with  a population  of  about  3,000,000  people,  pro- 
duced only  13,630,302  dozen  eggs  in  1909-10,  or  less  than  5 
dozen  per  individual.  The  state  sold  but  2,130,591  fowls  or 
less  than  one  per  individual.  This  does  not  account  for  the 
poultry  raised  in  the  villages  and  suburban  communities,  the 
latter  of  which  have  many  small  poultry  flocks  within  city  limits. 
Prof.  H.  R.  Lewis  made  a thorough  survey  of  the  poultry  in- 
dustry in  New  Brunswick,  and  found  14,000  birds  kept  in  city 
back  yards.  The  population  at  that  time  was  27,000  inhabitants. 
Prof.  Lewis  estimates  the  number  of  fowls  in  the  state  to  be  as 


follows : 

Adult  fowls  on  farms,  1914,  1,900,000 

Adult  fowls  in  cities  and  suburban  communities,  1914,  1,000,000 

Total  for  New  Jersey,  1914,  2,900,000 


There  were  about  50  chickens  per  farm  on  the  farms  where 
chickens  were  kept  in  1910.  Thus  the  average  farm  flock  is 
small.  These  birds  will  hunt  a large  part  of  their  own  living  by 
foraging  for  bugs,  lost  grain  and  like  products.  But  little  labor 
is  given  such  a flock  and  this  is  frequently  done  by  the  farmer’s 
wife  and  children.  Consequently,  the  major  portion  of  the 
poultry  industry  is  sustained  by  cheap  feed  and  labor.  Looking 
at  the  industry  from  this  viewpoint,  it  docs  not  appear  attractive 
as  a specialized  type  of  farming.  But  let  us  consider  the  results 
obtained  from  the  common  method  of  raising  and  caring  for 
poultry  on  the  average  farm,  and  the  results  obtained  when  the 
proper  care  and  attention  are  given  to  it.  The  average  pro- 
duction of  eggs  per  fowl  for  the  United  States  was  5.3  dozen 
in  1910.  The  average  production  for  these  150  poultry  farms 
was  109,  or  70  per  cent  greater.  With  eggs  selling  at  34  cents 
per  dozen  (the  average  for  1916)  the  increase  per  bird  on  these 
farms  would  be  $1.29.  This  should  pay  for  the  increase  in 
labor  and  feed,  and  still  leave  a margin  in  favor  of  proper  care 
for  the  poultry.  Where  market  facilities  are  not  so  good  and 
poultry  products  low  in  value,  then  specialization  might  not  be 
profitable;  there  are  certain  conditions  necessary  for  specializa- 
tion in  order  to  make  it  successful. 


lO 


Bulletin  329 


Advantages  oe  New  Jersey  as  a Poultry  State 
M arkefs 

The  value  of  poultry  in  New  Jersey  is  high  in  proportion  to 
its  other  agricultural  products.  While  in  1910  New  Jersey  had 
8 per  cent  of  its  agricultural  wealth  in  poultry,  the  United  States 
had  but  3 per  cent.  This  may  indicate  that  the  state  has  certain 
advantages  not  enjoyed  by  all  localities. 

The  first  great  advantage  in  New  Jersey  is  its  markets,  which 
are  unequalled  by  most  states,  and  unexcelled  by  any  other.  The 
production  in  the  state  is  not  sufficient  to  supply  its  own  people, 
while  the  great  markets  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  are 
directly  at  its  doors.  This  is  quite  an  advantage,  for  poultry 
products,  in  order  to  command  top  prices,  must  be  produced 
close  to  the  consumer.  It  is  true  that  eggs  and  poultry  meat  are 
shipped  long  distances,  but  they  are  not  fresh  when  they  reach 
their  destination,  and  consequently  must  be  sold  at  a lower  price. 
The  reader  can  verify  these  facts  by  examining  table  i,  which 
shows  that  the  prices  of  poultry  products  are  highest  around  the 
centers  of  population.  In  only  three  states  east  of  the  Mississippi 
River — Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut — was  the 
price  of  eggs  in  1910  higher  than  in  New  Jersey.  Of  the  western 
states,  Nevada,  Washington  and  Montana  reported  higher  prices 
than  New  Jersey.  That  farmers  in  these  states,  so  far  from 
centers  of  population,  should  receive  more  is  largely  due  to  the 
fact  that  they  do  not  recognize  the  value  of  poultry,  and  conse- 
quently the  industry  is  still  in  an  undeveloped  state,  leaving  a 
scarcity  of  eggs.  Unlike  hogs,  which  follow  the  states  which 
produce  the  most  corn,  chickens  follow  more  closely  the  centers 
of  population.  Pork  can  be  more  easily  shipped  than  eggs. 
Farmers  in  corn  states,  located  far  from  the  markets,  often  find 
it  chea]ier  to  shi])  their  corn  to  market  in  the  form  of  pork  to  save 
freight. 

Before  the  raising  of  any  product  can  be  made  a successful 
enterprise,  it  is  necessary  to  have  good  markets.  New  Jersey 
has  this  essential  well  developed. 


Table  i 

Relative  Importance  of  the  Poultry  Industry  in  Various  States 


GEOGRAPHIC 

SECTION 

STATE 

1 

t Eggs 

t Chickens 

1 

3o 

a 

Number 

Produced 

Value 

Number 

Produced 

Value 

Per  Cent  of  To 

Agricultural  Pi 

ductst 

Price  Per  Doze 

Eggs§ 

1 

51,487,518 

$14,167,103 

10,143,637 

$6,712,323 

Maine 

14,0.52,820 

3,568,100 

2,348,403 

1,313,160 

6 

$0.27 

New  Hampshire, . . 

6,936,520 

1,889,9,541 

1 1,245,634 

785,091 

6 

.29 

Vermont,  

6,580,466 

1,603,925 

i 1,154,879 

683,785 

3 

.27 

Massachusetts,  

13,305,540 

4,026..346j 

2,974,619 

2,232,653 

7 

.34 

Rhode  Island,  .... 

2,728,891 

800,0941 

1 556,598 

445,414 

12 

.34 

Connecticut,  

7,883,281 

2,278,6841 

1 1,863,504 

1,252,220 

6 

.33 

152,222,031 

35,242,048 

33,689,001 

19,941.206 

New  York,  

67,688,879 

16,000,173 

12,701,540 

7,634,267 

4 

.27 

New  Jersey,  

13,6.30,302 

3.584,157 

4,453,8.30 

3,533,844! 

i 8 

.29 

Pennsylvania, 

70,902,850 

1 15,657,718 

16,533,631 

8,773,095 

6 

.25 

370,965,8051 

1 71,147,639 

96,463,041 

45,152,966 

Ohio,  

96,259.005 

18,842,241' 

22,112,259 

10,377,777 

5 

.22 

76,7.34,210 

14,525,977 

21,895,510 

10,181,036 

4 

.20 

Illinois,  

93,5.54,983 

17,698,60.3 

1 30,630,613 

14,584,010 

3 

.20 

Michigan,  

56,176,525 

11,002,435 

1 11,864,965 

5,704,602 

4 

.21 

W’ is  con  sin 

48,241,082 

9,078,383 

1 9,959,694 

4,305,541 

3 

.21 

41.3,838,848 

1 

71,861,845 

1 

114,871,313 

48,609,932 

50,413, .375 

9,151,211 

10,933,411 

4,345,534 

3 

.20 

103,27.3,505 

18,098,7.52 

28,388,446 

13,171,819 

3 

.19 

Missouri,  

104,185,119 

18,025,250 

29,880,192 

13,644,244 

4 

.18 

North  Dakota,  . . . 

15,194,736 

2,675,9.31 

3,365,998 

1,273,984 

* 

.21 

South  Dakota,  . . . 

22,396,021 

3,791,973 

5,462,171 

2,079,797 

2 ' 

.19 

Nebraska,  

42, 769,. 550 

7,282,024 

14,073,412 

5,405,328 

2 

.18 

Kansas,  

75,606,542 

12,836,704 

22,767,683 

8,689,226 

3 

.18 

1 . . .... 

125,634,1541 

i 24,508,880 

64,779,063 

22,427,518 

1 

Delaware,  

4,224,300 

920,139 

1,476,469 

792,429 

8 

.24 

Maryland 

14,464,013 

3,012,931 

5,568,745 

2,818,680 

6 

.22 

Dis.  of  Columbia, . 

50,689 

14,908 

14,834 

8,647 

1 

Virginia,  

33,544,512 

6,577,152 

1 15,518,010 

5,853,828 

5 

.21 

1 

West  Virginia,  .. 

18,074,410 

3,464,309 

1 5,115,305 

2,065,924 

5 

.21 

North  Carolina,  . . 

21,838,671 

3,946,412 

1 14,048,470 

4,148,542 

2 

.19 

1 

South  Carolina,  .. 

9,722,160 

1,902,903 

7,865,401 

2,274,618 

* 

.21 

1 

Georgia,  

18,162,972 

3,469,.327 

13,076,103 

3,608,122 

* 

.21 

Florida,  

5,552,427 

1,200,709 

2,095,726 

1 856,728 

1 

2 

.24 

117,141,106 

20,210,445 

55,402,822 

17,366,246 

l!idot  OUUlU  VcUtrilX)  • • 

Kentucky,  

40,463.0301 

6,944,3151 

17,578,788 

6,335,656 

3 

.18 

Tennessee,  

39,352.433 

6,793,640 

16,282,596 

5,398,647 

3 

.18 

Alabama.  

19,626,126 

3,. 321, 033 

11,089,870 

2,818,365 

1 

.18 

Mississippi,  

17,699,517 

3,151,457 

10,451,568 

2,813,578 

1 

.19 

\\P  OCf"  1 

1.36,787,145 

21,829,363 

1 50,796,202 

15,187,413 

TV  cst  lO\/UtIl  * • 

! Arkansas,  

23.608,739 

3,891,298 

1 9,420,184 

2,500,045 

2 

.18 

Louisiana,  

12,176,725 

2,034,088 

I 5,255,223 

1 1,611,739 

1 

.19 

Oklahoma,  

.38,521,787 

6,317,863 

1 13,680,484 

1 4,532,234 

2 

.18 

Texas 

62,479,894 

9,586,114 

I 22,440,311 

6,543,395 

1 

.17 

Afnnnf  Clin 

i 

28,518,888 

6,875,523 

1 

1 6,912,613 

3,436,498 

Montana,  

4,706,178 

1,262,572 

1 1,116,690 

621,539 

1 

.33 

Idaho.  

5,088,908 

1,21.3,724 

1 1,298,067 

628,670 

1 

.29 

Wyoming,  

1.. 587, 43.3 

380,509 

1 .389,962 

195,697 

1 * 

.29 

Colorado,  

8,579,74.3 

1,968,472 

1 2,149,556 

1,106,197 

1 2 

.26 

New  Mexico,  .... 

2, 27.3,. 320 

522,029 

1 675,022 

266,452 

1 1 

.27 

.\rizona,  

1,311,134 

.398,995 

1 288,771 

166,099 

1 3 

.34 

Utah 

4,240,007' 

907,3.30 

1 829,505 

3,51,9.37 

1 2 

.24 

Nevada,  

732,165 

1 221,892 

1 165,040 

1 

99,907 

1 1 

1 

.38 

Pacifip  , 

60,790,277 

1 

1 15,315,134 

1 12,.592,432 

6,556,7.54 

1 

Washington,  

14. .326,464 

1 3,749,599 

1 3,186,743 

1,604,056! 

1 3 

.31 

Oregon,  

10,  .5,55, 840 

1 2„582,3.31 

1 2,309,3.50 

1,231,954 

1 3 

.29 

California,  

.35,907,973 

1 8,983,204 

1 

1 7,096,339 

1 

3,720,744 

1 4 

1 

.29 

* Less  than  1 per  cent. 

t Rpt.  13th  U.  S.  Census.  1910,  Vol.  5,  p.  512-515. 

t Field  Agents’  Handbook  of  Agricultural  Statistics.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agri.  Bur.  Crop  Statistics 
U914). 

t Warren,  G.  F.,  1917,  Farm  Management,  p.  576-577. 

(II) 


12 


BuLIvETIN  329 


Climate 

Poultry  does  best  in  a temperate  climate,  though  it  is  raised 
under  a wide  range  of  climatic  conditions.  Extreme  tempera- 
tures should  be  avoided.  A dry  atmosphere  is  preferable  to 
humid  conditions,  since  great  humidity  is  apt  to  cause  sickness 
and  disease  among  the  birds.  These  qualifications  are  found  in 
New  Jersey,  although  portions  along  the  coast  subject  to  heavy 
and  frequent  fogs  are  not  so  well  adapted. 

Soils 

The  southern  half  of  New  Jersey  lies  in  the  Coastal  Plain  soil 
province.  Since  all  of  the  soils  in  this  region  were  laid  down 
under  water,  much  of  it  is  sandy  or  gravelly.  This  provides  a 
dry  well  drained  soil,  that  warms  up  quickly  and  allows  filth  to 
leach  away  readily,  qualities  which  are  very  desirable  for  poultry 
production.  The  northern  half  of  the  state  is  rolling,  and  largely 
covered  with  glacial  soils.  This  topography  allows  good  soil 
drainage  with  sufficient  elevation  to  prevent  high  humidity  and 
fogs.  Thus  the  whole  state  has  soil  conditions  favorable  for 
poultry  raising.  The  Vineland  and  Lakewood  areas  are  located 
on  sandy  soils  of  level  topography,  while  the  Sussex  area  is 
located  on  glaciated  soils  of  a rolling  to  hilly  topography. 

Bstablished  Business 

Certain  portions  of  New  Jersey  have  a well  established  poultry 
farm  business.  For  example,  the  Vineland  section  consists  of 
one  continuous  poultry  section,  where  one  poultry  farm  is  ad- 
jacent to  others  of  the  same  type.  Outside  of  Fetaluna,  Cali- 
fornia, no  other  area  is  reported  in  the  United  States  where 
poultry  farming  has  been  developed  to  so  high  a degree.  For 
the  beginner  who^  wishes  tO'  learn  the  poultry  business,  this  is  a 
marked  advantage.  Observation  from  the  adjacent  farms  and 
communication  with  the  neighbors  are  of  great  assistance  in 
learning  the  business.  Besides,  in  a successful  business  already 
established,  accurate  information  concerning  the  advantages  of 
a locality  is  available. 


Description  of  the  P’ouetry  Areas  in  New  Jersey 

Vineland 

The  Vineland  poultry  area  covers  a rectangular  tract  in  Cum- 
berland County  about  five  miles  wide  and  seven  miles  long^ 

(13) 


14 


BUI.I.ETIN  329 


including  the  borough  of  Vineland  which  is  about  one  mile 
square.  With  North  Vineland  as  its  northern  boundary,  the 
tract  extends  seven  miles  south  almost  to  where  Lincoln  Avenue 
joins  the  Main  Road.  The  western  boundary  can  be  taken  as 
Mill  Road  and  the  eastern  as  a very  short  distance  east  of 
Brewster  Road.  It  is  located  35  miles  south  from  Philadelphia 
and  125  miles  from  New  York  City. 

Transportation  facilities  are  excellent,  no  poultry  farm  being 
over  2 miles  from  the  shipping  point.  The  Central  Railroad  of 
New  Jersey  (Bridgeton  Branch)  crosses  the  area  from  east  tO' 
west,  while  the  Cape  May  division  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
passes  through  the  district  from  north  to  south,  both  railroads 
having  stations  at  Vineland.  In  addition  to  the  two  railroads, 
there  is  a trolley  line  from  Vineland  to  Millville,  which  runs  an 
express  car  twice  a day.  With  these  facilities  many  of  the 
poultrymen  are  farming  with  no  horses.  They  take  the  eggs  to 
the  trolley  express,  which  carries  them  to  Vineland  for  five 
cents  a case,  where  the  express  companies  receive  them  and  ship* 
to  their  destination.  From  the  map  (fig.  i)  it  is  readily  seen 
that  the  larger  and  more  extensive  quarter  of  the  poultry  area 
has  settled  along  the  trolley  or  within  easy  reach  of  it.  The 
roads  in  this  area  are  largely  gravel,  and  are  very  good. 

The  topography  is  level  with  but  few  slight  depressions  where 
poultry  is  noticeably  absent.  The  soil  in  this  area  is  one  of  its 
best  features,  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  poultry  raising, 
being  light,  very  sandy  in  some  portions,  with  considerable 
gravel  in  most  places.  It  is  well  drained,  making  it  possible  to 
keep  poultry  on  the  same  ground  year  after  year  without  much 
danger  from  disease,  as  there  might  he  on  heavier,  clayey  soils. 
The  soil  is  probably  the  largest  single  factor  that  allows  success- 
ful intensive  poultry  farming  here.  As  the  soil  is  light  and 
sandy,  it  also  warms  up  early  in  the  season  and  allows  a long 
range  period  for  the  birds.  Tins  is  a decided  advantage,  as  it 
lessens  the  feed  cost  considerably. 

The  climate  of  Vineland  is  another  feature  in  favor  of  the 
]:)Oultry  business.  It  has  moderate  winters  with  slight  snow- 
falls which  usually  last  only  a fe'^-  days  at  a time.  Both  winters 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  15 

and  summers  are  moderate,  being'  neither  excessively  cold  nor 
excessively  warm,  a condition  especially  desirable  for  poultry 
business.  Although  the  area  is  not  high  above  sea-level,  and  is 
not  far  distant  from  the  ocean  and  bay,  fogs  are  not  troublesome. 

Excellent  shipping  facilities,  nearness  to  Philadelphia  and  New 
York  markets,  g'ood  roads,  light  well  drained  soils,  and  mild 
climate  make  the  Vineland  area  especially  adapted  to  poultry 
raising. 


Lakewood 

The  Lakewood  area,  with  Lakewood  as  its  center,  is  located  in 
Ocean  County,  63;  miles  from  New  York  City,  and  about  13 
miles  from  the  shore  resorts.  For  shipping  facilities  it  has  the 
Central  Railroad  of  New  Jersey  running  directly  to  New  York. 
The  area  is  traversed  by  good  gravel  roads. 

The  poultry  industry  of  this  area  is  not  quite  so  intensive  as  in 
the  Vineland  area,  the  farms  being  larger  and  more  scattered. 

The  topography  of  Lakewood  is  fairly  level  and  the  soils  are 
light,  similar  to  those  of  Vineland,  except  that  they  are  some- 
what more  sandy.  The  area  is  in  the  celebrated  pine  belt  of 
New  Jersey  and  is  marked  by  the  characteristic  growth  of  pines, 
which  help  protect  and  moderate  the  naturally  mild  winters.  The 
climate  is  quite  similar  to  that  of  Vineland. 

Altogether,  the  Lakewood  area  has  practically  the  same  good 
features  for  the  poultry  business  as  Vineland,  i.  e.,  light  soils, 
nearness  to  market,  good  roads  and  a mild  climate. 

S ussex 

The  Sussex  poultry  area  differs  considerably  from  the  Vine- 
land  and  Lakewood  areas.  It  is  located  in  the  northwestern  part 
of  Sussex  County  in  the  hills  and  valley  along  the  Delaware 
River.  Transportation  facilities  are  poor,  the  country  roads 
being  very  rough,  and  shipping  points — Port  Jervis  and  Branch- 
ville — from  three  to  seven  miles  away.  Branchville  is  70  miles 
from  New  York  City  on  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western 
Railroad,  while  Port  Jervis  is  80  miles  from  New  York  City  on 
the  Erie  Railroad. 

3* 


i6 


BulIvETin  329 


The  topography  is  exceedingly  rough  for  New  Jersey  farm 
land,  and  the  soil  is  mainly  silt  loam  or  stony  loam.  The  section 
has  mild  summers,  but  severe  winters. 

Thus  the  Sussex  poultry  area  has  the  disadvantage  from  the 
standpoint  of  raising  poultry,  of  severe  winters,  poor  transporta- 
tion and  heavier  loam  soils.  Drainage  is  provided  by  the  natural 
slope  of  the  land. 

The  poultry  farming  in  this  area  is  not  quite  so  intensive  as 
either  at  Lakewood  or  at  Vineland,  and  some  crops  are  raised 
along  with  the  poultry. 

Pouetry  Associations 

In  each  area  surveyed  poultry  associations  are  active  in  pro- 
moting the  interests  of  the  industry,  and  they  gave-  valuable  aid 
in  securing  the  data  through  the  hearty  co-operation  of  their 
members.  The  New  Jersey  State  Poultry  Association  now  has 
a paid-in  membership  of  between  1,000  and  1,100.  The  four 
poultry  associations  in  the  sections  surveyed  furnish  277,  or  over 
one-fourth  of  the  total  state  membership.  Each  local  associa- 
tion has  a complete  constitution  and  set  of  by-laws.  The  objects 
of  all  are  the  same,  but  the  various  associations  vary  consider- 
ably in  the  degree  of  activity  which  they  maintain. 

Vineland 

The  Vineland  Poultry  Association  is  an  organization  started 
eight  years  ago  with  three  objects  in  view. 

I.  Educational. 

In  addition  to  a business  meeting  once  a month,  the  associa- 
tion arranges  a series  of  educational  lectures  and  demonstrations. 
This  is  in  the  hands  of  a special  educational  committee. 

At  these  meetings  members  of  the  poultry  department  staff  of 
the  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  and  other  well 
known  poultry  authorities  are  secured  to  discuss  the  problems 
and  possibilities  of  the  poultry  business.  The  meetings  are 
generally  held  through  the  winter  when  the  poultrymen  have 
more  leisure.  During  the  past  winter,  1916—1917,  the  associa- 
tion held  six  of  these  educational  meetings  with  an  average 
attendance  of  about  two  hundred. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  17 

2.  Commercial. 

Acting  as  an  approved  member  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Poul- 
try Association,  the  Vineland  Poultry  Association  can  buy  feed 
and  supplies  co-operatively  through  the  State  Poultry  Associa- 
tion directly  from  wholesale  grain  houses  in  the  West.  The 
Vineland  Association  has  only  recently  begun  to  purchase  feed  in 
this  way,  but  it  has  possibilities  of  being  an  economical  method 
of  purchasing  for  the  members,  as  well  as  a means  of  securing 
grains  of  the  best  quality. 

The  question  of  marketing  poultry  products,  especially  eggs, 
co-operatively,  is  being  agitated  at  the  present  time  by  members 
of  the  association  and  it  will  no  doubt  be  taken  up  by  the  organi- 
zation shortly.  Certainly  with  the  proper  organization,  special 
recognition  could  be  obtained  from  the  large  egg  markets,  of  the 
uniform,  high-quality  white-shelled  eggs  produced  in  the  Vine- 
land  district.  This  would  mean  additional  profits  to  the  mem- 
bers, as  well  as  advertisement  for  the  area. 

3.  Legislation. 

Any  legislative  measure  that  can  be  of  value  to  promote  or 
protect  poultr)^  interests  is  forwarded  by  the  state  as  well  as  local 
poultry  associations.  This  applies  to  local  and  state-wide  laws. 

In  addition  to  these  three  distinctly  business  objects,  the  asso- 
ciation aims  to  perform  a social  function  to  add  interest  both 
inside  and  outside  its  ranks.  Twice  a year  it  holds  a “poultry- 
man’s  frolic”  which  is  attended  by  five  to  six  hundred  people 
and  gives  a general  good  time  to  all  present. 

The  Vineland  Poultry  Association  started  out  with  40  mem- 
bers and  has  now  developed  to  160  paid-in  members  to  the  state 
association.  Its  annual  dues  are  $i.oO',  including  75  cents  for  its 
own  running  expenses  and  25  cents  for  the  dues  which  the  state 
association  requires  of  all  members. 

Thus  the  Vineland  Poultry  Association  is  growing  and  becom- 
ing a factor  in  the  community  life  of  the  area.  As  it  develops  it 
is  becoming  of  greater  value  to  its  members  as  an  educational, 
commercial,  legislative  and  social  factor. 

Hammonton 

The  Hammonton  Poultry  Association  is  one  of  the  oldest 
poultry  organizations  in  New  Jersey,  and  was  especially  large 


i8 


Bulletin  329 


when  the  broiler  industry  of  South  Jersey  was  at  its  height.  At 
present  it  has  25  paid-in  members  to  the  State  Poultry  Associa- 
tion. One  of  its  chief  activities  includes  the  management  of  a 
supply  store  where  its  members  purchase  all  their  feed. 

Lakezvood 

The  Lakewood  Poultry  Association  has  been  organized  four 
years  and  has  made  rapid  growth,  having  64  paid-in  members. 
It  is  very  active  especially  with  regard  to  the  co-operative  pur- 
chasing of  feed  and  supplies.  A separate  warehouse  has  been 
secured  and  the  project  seems  to  be  progressing  satisfactorily. 

Tri-St  ate 

The  Tri-State  Poultry  Association  includes  the  poultrymen 
in  the  northwestern  part  (Montague  Township)  of  Sussex 
County.  It  also  has  a few  members  from  New  York  State  and 
Pennsylvania.  Organized  two  years  ago,  it  now  has  a paid-in 
membership  of  28. 

Flock  Practice 

The  general  methods  of  flock  practice  on  these  commercial 
plants  can  be  described  as  fairly  uniform.  Although  there  are 
variations  according  to  the  individual  poultry  man’s  ideas,  these 
variations  are  usually  on  the  minor  details  of  flock  management. 
The  general  practices  of  the  Vineland  area  are  given  in  the 
following  paragraphs. 

Breeders 

A certain  number  of  the  best  yearlings  are  kept  over  every 
winter  as  breeders  to  furnish  hatching  eggs.  These  birds  are 
selected  according  to  their  laying  ability,  and  general  vigor  or 
vitality,  as  well  as  type.  During  the  last  two  years,  the  practice 
has  grown  of  hatching  in  February,  and  using  pullets  from  the 
F'el)ruary  hatching  as  breeders  the  following  winter.  This 
method  is  being  practiced  by  a greater  number  of  poultrymen 
each  year  and  seems  to  work  out  very  satisfactorily,  as  the  Feb- 
ruary birds  are  more  easily  raised,  and  the  cockerels  from  this 
early  hatch  can  be  sold  when  broiler  size  at  a profitable  price. 
The  birds  to  be  used  as  breeders  are  mated  up  usually  from  the 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  19 

first  of  January  to  the  fifteenth,  which  allows  the  saving  of 
hatching  eggs  the  last  of  January.  The  production  from  these 
breeders  will  vary  from  30  to  70  per  cent  by  April  first.  This 
production  may  be  reasonably  expected,  although  it  may  fall 
below  or  possibly  may  rise  above  the  averages  given,  according 
to  the  individual  poultryman’s  good  fortune  in  careful  selection 
of  birds  and  general  skill  in  handling  them,  which  includes  the 
prevention  of  disease. 

Hatching  Bggs 

After  the  hatching  eggs  are  produced,  they  are  sorted  over 
carefully,  and  the  odd-shaped,  extra  large  and  tinted  eggs  taken 
out,  thus  leaving  medium-sized,  uniform-shaped  eggs  to  be  used 
for  hatching.  In  this  selection  or  culling  out,  as  many  as  20  to 
25  per  cent  of  the  total  number  may  be  removed. 

Incubatioji 

The  majority  of  the  poultrymen  maintain  just  enough  of  incu- 
bator capacity  to  do  their  own  hatching.  Of  the  1 50  farms  in 
this  survey,  there  were  9 that  did  custom  hatching,  and  35  that 
were  selling  day-old  chicks,  while  13  were  buying  day-old  chicks. 

The  most  common  type  of  incubator  was  one  with  a capacity 
of  from  360  to  400  eggs,  this  size  representing  41.7  per  cent  of 
the  total  incubator  capacity  on  the  150  farms,  while  53.7  per 
cent  of  the  total  capacity  was  included  in  incubators  holding 
less  than  500  eggs.  There  were  28  incubators  having  a capacity 
of  1,000  eggs  or  over,  the  smallest  holding  60  eggs  and  the 
largest  13,600  eggs. 

Both  oil  and  gas  are  used  as  fuel  for  the  small-sized  incuba- 
tors, gas  being  the  more  expensive  but  usually  giving  less  trouble 
in  regulating  and  watching.  Coal  is  used  with  all  the  larger- 
sized  incubators. 

Some  of  the  larger  poultry  plants  have  separate  cellars  for 
incubation,  usually  with  a feed  room  built  over  them.  But  on 
the  larger  number  the  hatching  is  done  in  the  cellar  of  the 
dwelling  house. 


20 


Bui^lktin  329 


Brooding 

After  the  chicks  are  hatched  they  are  left  in  the  incubator 
one  or  two  days  and  then  placed  in  brooders.  Right  at  this 
point  begins  what  might  be  termed  the  first  culling,  as  the  weak 
and  deformed  chicks  are  not  transferred  from  incubator  to 
brooder.  This  is  a critical  period  in  the  raising  od  the  chicks. 
The  small  chicks  are  fed  four  times  a day  for  the  first  week, 
three  times  a day  the  next  two  weeks,  and  after  that  twice  a day. 
Milk  mash  is  quite  commonly  used  to  start  them  on,  and  a 
scratch  feed  of  home  mixture  or  commercial  manufacture  is  kept 
in  hoppers  before  them  at  all  times,  as  well  as  charcoal,  oyster 
shells  and  grit. 

There  are  various  types  of  brooders  in  use.  The  most  common 
type  on  the  older  poultry  plants  is  the  long  brooder  house,  14 
to  20  feet  in  width  and  the  length  determined  by  the  number  of 
chicks  to^  be  brooded.  The  chick  boxes  are  usually  about  3 feet 
square  with  a 2-foot  hover,  and  have  a capacity  of  about  85 
chicks.  Heat  is  usually  furnished  by  hot  water  pipes  in  this 
particular  type  of  brooder. 

Colony  brooder  houses  are  being  used  largely  on  the  newer 
poultry  plants  and  are  giving  satisfactory  results.  The  colony 
house  itself  is  usually  6 by  8,  6 by  10  or  8 by  10  feet  in  size. 
By  installing  a coal  stove  brooder  and  hover  in  these  houses, 
from  3001  to  500  chicks  are  cared  for. 

The  February  and  early  March  chicks  are  brooded  for  eight 
to  ten  weeks,  while  the  chicks  hatched  later  are  brooded  for  six 
to  eight  weeks.  Then  the  chicks  are  placed  in  colony  houses  and 
put  on  range  where  they  have  free  range  on  green  forage  such 
as  young  rye  or  wheat,  alfalfa  or  rape. 

During  the  entire  brooding  period  the  more  progressive 
poultrymen  continue  a rigid  culling  out  of  the  chicks  that  lack 
vigor  or  are  undesirable  in  any  way.  When  about  four  weeks 
old,  or  as  soon  as  they  can  be  distinguished,  the  young  cockerels 
are  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  flock.  The  birds  hatched  in 
February  or  March  are  often  raised  to  broiler  size  to  i 
pound),  but  those  hatched  in  April  and  May  are  sold  at  about  five 
weeks  of  age. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  21 

When  the  long  brooder  houses  are  used,  the  poultryinen 
transfer  the  chickens  to  separate  colony  houses  that  usually 
carry  about  65  pullets.  This  system  entails  considerable  invest- 
ment in  a permanent  building  that  is  in  use  only  a short  time 
each  year.  But  where  the  colony  house  brooders  are  used,  the 
same  houses  are  often  converted  into  colony  houses  by  removing 
the  coal  stove  and  hover.  After  the  brooding  stage,  the  young 
pullets,  which  are  then  from  6 to  8 weeks  of  age,  are  placed  on 
free  range. 

Colony  Houses 

The  colony  houses  on  the  range  ordinarily  have  a capacity  of 
50  to  100  pullets,  the  most  common  sizes  being  6 by  8,  7 by  8,  or 
8 by  10  feet,  usually  of  the  shed  roof  type.  Here  in  addition  to 
the  green  forage  growing  on  the  range,  such  as  rape,  wheat,  rye, 
clover  or  alfalfa,  the  pullets  have  mash  and  grain  before  them 
in  the  houses  at  all  times,  usually  placed  in  separate  boxes  or 
hoppers  sufficient  to  last  about  a week. 

Pullets 

The  pullets  are  left  on  the  ranges  in  the  colony  houses  until 
ready  to  lay,  which  is  not  later  than  October  first,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  some  of  the  May-hatched  birds,  which  may  be  brought 
in  before  laying,  to  avoid  being  exposed  to  the  cold  fall  rains. 

When  brought  in  from  the  ranges,  the  pullets  are  placed  in 
separate  pens  in  the  laying  houses,  usually  anywhere  from  50 
to  200  in  a pen.  At  this  time,  there  is  another  culling  out  and 
the  cull  pullets  are  sold  off  for  meat.  This  habit  of  culling  is 
being  more  and  more  rigidly  practiced  now  that  the  price  of  all 
feeds  is  so  high,  as  it  is  essential  tO'  keep  only  the  best  stock  over 
winter.  From  now  on  the  pullets  are  treated  as  the  laying  hens, 
or  yearlings. 

Y ear  lings 

In  the  survey,  all  hens  kept  after  the  pullet  year  are  classed 
as  yearlings.  The  number  of  hens  kept  longer  than  the  second 
laying  year  was  very  few,  not  exceeding  3 per  cent  of  the  total. 
Thus  the  yearlings  consist  practically  of  those  pullets  which  have 


22  Bulletin  329 

shown  the  best  records  during  their  first  laying  year.  That  is, 
the  pullets  are  carefully  culled  out  before  being  carried  over 
another  winter  as  yearlings,  and  those  selected  are  used  largely 
as  breeders  for  hatching  eggs.  This  culling  starts  about  the 
middle  of  June  and  continues  to  fall.  The  great  bulk  of  cull 
birds  are  sold  off  during  August  and  September,  probably  75  per 
cent  of  the  total. 

These  selected  yearlings  with  the  new  pullets  constitute  the 
laying  flock  carried  over  winter. 

Cockerels 

The  young  cockerels  are  separated  as  soon  as  distinguishable. 
Those  from  the  early  February  and  March  hatches  are  raised  to 
broiler  size  and  sold.  The  cockerels  from  later  hatches  of  April 
and  May  are  sold  off  at  the  age  of  four  to  five  weeks,  when 
they  bring  from  7 to  15  cents  apiece.  This  of  course,  is  a losing 
price,  but  it  is  done  for  two  reasons  : First,  the  intensive  system 
of  poultry  keeping  allows  no  room  for  the  raising  of  many  chicks 
to  broiler  size,  and  as  the  succeeding  hatches  come  off,  all  the 
available  room  is  used  for  raising  young  pullets,  thus  maintaining 
the  largest  laying  flock  possible.  Second,  the  broiler  prices  be- 
come very  low  by  the  time  of  the  last  hatches  and  do  not  allow 
much  of  a margin  for  profit. 

The  young  cockerels  sold  in  this  way  are  used  chiefly  for  two 
purposes : first,  they  are  purchased  by  suburbanites  in  small 
numbers,  who  are  able  to  raise  them  to  meat  size  on  table  scraps 
and  waste  food,  thus  producing  a good  wholesome  cheap  meat 
for  themselves;  and  second,  they  are  purchased  in  considerable 
quantities  by  large  asparagus  growers  in  South  Jersey  to  use  in 
the  asparagus  fields  as  insect  destroyers. 

A few  cockerels  have  to  be  kept  over  for  breeding  purposes 
and  the  right  selection  of  these  is  one  of  the  most  important 
l)oints  in  a successful  poultry  business.  Much  of  the  laying 
power  of  a hen  is  transmitted  through  the  male  bird,  therefore 
special  care  is  being  taken  to  secure  these  breeding  cockerels  by 
the  successful  poultryman.  Special  cockerel  matings  are  made; 
that  is,  one  or  two  extra  good  cockerels  are  mated  with  a few  of 
the  strongest  laying  hens,  as  indicated  by  trap-nesting  records  or 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  23, 

otherwise,  and  the  best  cockerels  from  the  eggs  thus  secured  are 
saved  for  the  next  matings.  The  practice  has  been  to  keep  these 
breeding  cockerels  one  year  and  then  sell  them  off.  With  the 
increase  of  February  hatching,  the  best  cock  birds  are  kept  over  a 
second  year  to  be  mated  with  February  pullets.  Except  when 
producing  hatching  eggs,  covering  a period  of  approximately 
to  6 months,  the  cockerels  are  kept  by  themselves  in  a cock- 
erel house.  The  proportion  of  cockerels  to  hens  in  the  breeding 
pens  varies  from  i cockerel  to  15  hens  up  to  as  high  as  25,  with 
18  or  20  commonly  considered  the  best. 

The  Laying  Flock 
of  Flock 

The  total  number  of  pullets  and  old  hens  a poultryman  has  on 
November  first  is  generally  considered  to  be  the  size  of  the 
laying  flock  for  the  year,  as  the  poultryman’s  business  year  is 
usually  taken  from  November  first  to  November  first  of  the  fol- 
lowing year.  By  that  time  the  young  pullets  are  brought  in  off 
the  range,  and  culled  thoroughly,  and  all  the  old  hens  have  been 
sold  off  except  those  saved  as  breeders. 

Housing 

The  prevailing  type  of  house  in  the  Vineland  area,  as  well  as 
the  other  areas  discussed  in  this  bulletin,  is  the  long  shed-roof 
house.  Next  in  popularity  is  the  half  monitor  style,  but  most 
of  the  newer  houses  and  those  in  course  of  construction  are  of 
the  shed  roof  type,  which  is  the  more  economical.  These  houses 
are  usually  14  to  16  feet  wide,  and  the  length  is  governed  by 
number  of  birds  kept.  The  longer  laying  houses  are  divided 
into  sections  accommodating  50  to  200  birds  in  a pen.  In  some 
instances,  instead  of  having  a single  laying  house  divided  into 
pens,  the  flocks  are  kept  in  entirely  separate  houses.  This  means 
greater  building  cost  per  bird  housed,  and  more  labor  in  caring 
for  them.  The  capacity  of  the  laying  houses  is  figured  on  the 
basis  of  three  to  four  square  feet  per  bird  of  the  White  Leghorn 
type,  the  average  on  the  150  farms  being  3.9  square  feet  per 
mature  bird. 


24 


Bulletin  329 


The  flooring  in  the  laying  houses  consists  of  dirt,  wood,  or 
concrete.  Litter  is  always  kept  on  the  floors,  so  that  the  hens 
have  to  scratch  and  exercise  in  getting  their  grain,  and  for  this 
purpose  wheat  straw  is  preferred,  but  when  not  obtainable  oat  or 
rye  straw  is  used. 

T rap-nesting 

Keeping  actual  records  of  egg  production  per  individual  hen 
by  trap-nesting  banded  or  numbered  birds  was  not  the  common 
practice,  but  there  were  9 of  the  150  poultrymen  on  this  survey, 
who  were  regularly  trap-nesting. 

Feeding 

There  are  two  general  methods  of  feeding  in  practice.  In  one 
method,  the  mash  is  placed  in  large  self-feeding  hoppers  holding 
flve  hundred  to  one  thousand  pounds  of  feed  and  these  need  to 
be  refilled  once  a week  or  whenever  empty.  Then  the  grain 
ration  is  fed  twice  a day,  morning  and  afternoon. 

In  the  other  method,  fresh  mash  is  put  out  every  morning  and 
grain  is  fed  once  a day  in  the  afternoon.  By  feeding  in  this  way 
the  poultryman  can  keep  track  of  the  mash  eaten  each  day  and 
vary  his  feeding  to  meet  the  birds’  requirements  more  closely 
than  when  large  hoppers  are  used.  However,  the  large  hoppers 
are  a labor-saving  device  and  hence  desirable  from  this  stand- 
point. 

The  feeding  of  the  birds  requires  the  close  attention  of  the 
poultryman,  as  it  is  varied  considerably  according  to  the  egg 
production  and  weather  conditions. 

The  majority  of  the  poultrymen  are  buying  their  grains  sepa- 
rately and  mixing  the  feed  themselves.  While  this  method  in- 
volves extra  labor,  the  poultryman  is  more  certain  of  having 
just  the  mixture  desired. 

Feed  mixtures  and  rations  were  based  almost  entirely  on  the 
recommendations  of  the  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station.  There  were  a number  of  variations  to  meet  individual 
preference  or  special  conditions,  but  the  New  Jersey  ration  was 
the  most  common. 

The  New  Jersey  ration  used  in  the  Vineland  Egg  Laying  Con- 
test was  made  up  as  follows  : 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nfw  Jersey  25 
New  Jersey  Contest  Mash 

Wheat  bran,  loo  lbs. 

Wheat  middlings,  white  or  flour,  loo  lbs. 

Ground  oats,  standard  or  better,  loo  lbs. 

Corn  meal,  pure,  loo  lbs. 

Meat  scrap,  50  per  cent  protein,  100  lbs. 

While  the  ration  varies  with  the  weather,  relative  prices  of 
grain,  and  the  like  influences,  this  probably  represents  closely 
what  was  ordinarily  used  by  these  poultrymen. 

The  above  dry  mash  was  generally  supplemented  by  a scratch 
ration  composed  of  cracked  corn,  wheat  and  oats.  These  grains 
were  usually  mixed  in  equal  parts,  except  during  the  winter 
months,  when  it  was  a common  practice  to  double  the  amount  of 
cracked  corn. 

Successful  feeding  involved  the  maintaining  of  the  proper 
relation  between  the  amount  of  mash  and  grain  consumed.  It 
was  the  general  practice  to  feed  slightly  greater  amounts  of  grain 
than  of  mash,  except  during  the  spring  or  season  of  heavy  pro- 
duction, when  the  mash  consumed  usually  equaled  or  exceeded 
the  amount  of  grain  fed. 


Ranges 

Ranges  occupy,  on  the  average,  3.2  acres  per  farm,  or  over 
27  per  cent  of  the  total  farm  area.  The  ranges  are  divided  into 
almost  equal  separate  parts  for  the  laying  flock  and  for  the  young 
or  growing  stock.  Such  crops  as  rye,  wheat  or  clover,  or  occa- 
sionally alfalfa,  are  sown  in  late  summer  or  early  fall  and  pro- 
duce a good  growth  ready  for  the  use  of  the  birds  as  early  in 
the  spring  as  the  weather  is  fit  for  them  to  be  outside.  Rape  is 
used  very  commonly  and  is  sown  in  the  spring,  more  especially 
on  the  young-stock  ranges.  When  space  permits,  the  poultrymen 
have  alternate  ranges,  so  that  while  the  birds  are  using  one  sec- 
tion, the  other  section  is  plowed  up  and  a new  crop  sown.  Where 
this  is  practiced  the  ranges  furnish  all  the  green  material  re- 
quired for  a period  of  approximately  seven  months — April  to 
October.  In  a few  instances,  corn  was  planted  on  the  ranges  and 
allowed  to  become  a foot  high  before  turning  chickens  into  it. 


26 


BuLIvETIN  329 

This  furnished  shade  as  well  as  some  green  material.  As  a rule, 
the  poultrymen  had  fruit  trees  to  furnish  shade  in  the  poultry 
yard,  the  peach  being  most  frequently  used. 

SuccuEENT  Crops 

Green  material  or  succulent  feed  of  some  sort  is  essential  in 
the  poultry  business.  The  poultrymen  are  making  it  a practice 
to  grow  enough  for  their  own  needs;  there  were  but  two  poultry- 
men  in  this  survey  who  were  buying  green  feed,  such  as  mangel 
wurzels. 

For  winter  green  or  succulent  food  the  poultrymen  aim  to  raise 
such  crops  as  mangel  beets  or  cabbage,  which  can  be  stored  for 
the  winter.  Mangel  beets  occupied  a total  of  25  acres,  cabbage 
1 1.4  acres  and  kale  1.5  acres  on  these  150  farms.  In  addition 
to  these  main  crops,  occasionally  lettuce  is  used.  In  one  case, 
sprouted  oats  were  used ; but  they  are  an  expensive  source  of 
green  material,  and  involve  considerable  labor. 

In  feeding  the  beets,  they  are  either  cut  up  fine,  or  merely  sus- 
pended on  a string  from  the  house  roof  for  the  chickens  to  peck 
at. 

Methods  of  Study 

Information  was  gathered  for  this  study  by  visiting  each  farm 
in  person  and  getting  the  poultryman’s  farm  organization  re- 
ceipts, expenses  and  inventory  of  the  entire  business.  The  egg 
and  chicken  receipts,  and  expenses  for  feed  were  on  98  farms 
obtained  direct  from  the  poultryman’s  chicken  account.  Where 
no  accounts  were  kept  the  amounts  were  carefully  given  from 
the  farmer’s  memory,  assisted  by  partial  records  and  checked  by 
Mr.  Waller.  Such  a study  has  vast  possibilities  for  obtaining 
information  about  a subject.  This  is  primarily  a study  of  the 
business  of  poultry  farming.  So  far  as  the  authors  are  aware 
no  like  publication  has  been  presented  upon  poultry  farming  as 
a business. 

The  probable  reason  for  this  is  that  so  few  states  have  a poul- 
try industry  that  affords  such  excellent  opportunities  for  study. 
Most  poultry  is  a side  issue  on  the  farm,  and  of  comparatively 
small  importance.  These  farms  studied  in  this  survey  derive 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nkw  Jersey  27 

98  per  cent  of  their  entire  receipts  from  poultry.  Such  a condi- 
tion simplifies  the  study  of  the  industry.  Besides,  these  poultry- 
men  buy  practically  all  their  feed  except  greens,  such  as  cabbage, 
pasture  and  roots.  Their  energies  are  given  almost  exclusively 
to  care  of  poultry. 

Breeds  of  Poultry 

The  average  farm  flock  is  composed  of  mongrels  or  mixed 
breeds.  They  are  bred  with  little  or  no  attention  to  breeding 
high-class  birds.  On  these  farms  we  find  an  entirely  different 
status.  Most  of  the  birds  are  from  one  breed  and  practically 
all  are  pure-bred. 

Table  2 


Breeds  of  Chickens  Found  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nezu  Jersey 


BREED 

Number  of  Laying  Birds 

Number  of  Farms 

Nov.  1,  1915  ' 

1 

Nov.  1,  1916 

Nov.  1,  1915 

Nov.  1,  1916 

White  Leghorns 

105,568 

118,364 

149 

149 

Rhode  Island  Reds 

716 

1,520 

9 

15 

Aiiconas,  

700 

700 

2 

2 

White  Wyandottes 

356 

679 

5 

8 

Barred  Rocks 

111 

328 

3 

4 

Columbian  Wyandottes 

250 

238 

1 

2 

Buflf  Rocks 

92 

137 

2 

2 

Black  Minorcas,  

15 

80 

1 

1 

Mongrels 

38 

38 

1 

1 

White  Plymonth  Rocks 

22 

25 

1 

1 

Black  Sumatras,  

20 

20 

1 

1 

Black  Leghorns,  

20 

20 

1 

1 

Campines,  

20 

20 

1 

1 

Buff  Leghorns,  

15 

18 

1 

1 

Brahmas,  

20 

12 

1 

1 

Other  Breeds 

8 

8 

1 

1 

Total  Laying  Birds,  . . 
Cockerels 

Grand  Total 

107,971 

2,546 

122,207 

3,252 

150 

150 

110,517 

125,459 

1 

150 

150 

The  number  of  farms  having  breeds  other  than  White  Leghorns 
was  31  on  November  i,  1915,  and  42  on  November  i,  1916. 
White  Leghorns  constituted  97.8  per  cent  on  November  i,  1915, 
and  94.3  per  cent  of  the  total  on  November  i,  1916.  The  meat 
breeds  are  kept  for  the  poultryman’s  own  table  use  as  a source 
of  meat  supply.  The  White  Leghorn  is  not  a good  meat  fowl, 
but  is  primarily  an  egg  producer.  This  breed  is  to  the  egg  in- 
dustry what  the  Holstein  cow  is  to  the  market  milk  industry. 


28 


BuIvLETIN  329 


and  these  poultry  farms  are  run  primarily  for  egg  production. 
The  fact  that  the  White  Leghorns  predominate  almost  exclusively, 
would  indicate  that  these  poultrymen  fully  recognize  the  superi- 
ority of  this  breed.  The  breed  is  hardy,  full  of  vitality  and 
comparatively  easy  to  raise.  The  pullets  mature  early.  White 
Leghorns  are  economical  egg  producers,  and  are  a desirable  breed 
for  egg  production. 

Pouetry  Farms  Inceuded  in  the  Survey 

On  100  of  these  150  poultry  farms,  the  operators  sold  nothing 
but  poultry  products,  while  on  the  other  50  some  truck  and  fruit 
were  sold,  but  in  no  case  over  40  per  cent.  The  average  amount 
of  the  sales  for  products  other  than  poultry  products  on  these 
50  farms  was  $188  per  farm.  This  is  not  a large  amount  and 
would  not  influence  the  results  materially. 

Thus  these  farms  are  run  primarily  or  exclusively  for  poultry 
products,  of  which  eggs  are  the  most  important.  A study  of 
such  farms  provides  definite  information  on  the  profits  to  be 
expected  from  poultry  when  they  are  not  produced  on  cheap 
feed  and  labor.  It  shows  conclusively  whether  poultry  can  suc- 
cessfully compete  with  other  types  of  farming.  It  is  seldom  that 
we  find  such  a highly  specialized  type  of  farming  so  well  defined. 
Specialization  is  frequently  decried  as  unprofitable.  But  the 
proper  kind  of  specialization  can  be  made  profitable.  This  does 
not  apply  to  the  exceptional  man  only,  but  in  this  case  includes 
an  entire  class. 

Farm  Tenure 

These  150  farms  were  occupied  entirely  by  owners.  In  this 
respect  they  differ  radically  from  most  other  types  of  farming. 
The  chief  reason  for  this  is  the  comparatively  small  amount  of 
capital  necessary  for  poultry  farming.  In  addition  to  this,  the 
l)usiness  on  these  farms  is  usually  but  a one-man  business.  A 
one-man  business  usually  will  not  produce  sufficient  profits  for  a 
landlord  and  tenant  to  share.  Sometimes  a large  proportion  of 
owners  indicates  small  profits.  However,  in  this  case  it  simply 
indicates  a small  business.  Thus  the  form  of  tenure  is  not  a true 
criterion  of  the  profits  derived  from  farming  in  all  cases.  For 


29 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  N?:w  Jersey 

potato,  general,  and  dairy  farming  in  New  Jersey,  it  did  serve  as 
a guide.  However,  poultry  farms  can  be  established  on  a small 
amount  of  capital,  and  therefore  land  tenure  is  not  a criterion  of 
prosperity  on  these  poultry  farms. 

While  poultry  is  the  second  most  profitable  type  of  farming 
here  presented,  there  were  no  tenant  farms.  Thus  the  prosperity 
as  measured  by  labor  income  is  not  an  absolute  guide  for  the  con- 
dition of  tenantry.  For  the  amount  of  capital  invested,  poultry 
farming  is  the  most  profitable  type.  Here  is  a type  of  farming 
which  will  allow  the  man  with  limited  capital  to  make  a com- 
fortable living.  For  the  city-bred  man,  it  probably  is  the  type  in 
which  he  can  best  succeed.  It  is  highly  specialized  and  does  not 
require  so  much  knowledge  of  soils,  fertilizers,  crops,  and  farm 
practice  as  most  other  types  of  farming.  While  successful  poul- 

Table  3 

Profits  Derived  from  Different  Farm  Types  in  New  Jersey  and  Its  Relation 
^ to  Farm  Tenure 


FARM  TYPES 

Owner  Farms 

Tenant 

Farms 

Number 

Labor 

Income 

Capital 
Invested 
Per  Farm 

1 

Farm 

Income 

1 

Number 

Labor 

Income 

Potato 

194 

$917 

$17,673 

$1,801 

149 

$753 

General 

192 

491 

13,602 

1,071 

68 

653 

Truck,*  

300 

412 

11,494 

987 

Dairy,  

300 

457 

11,259 

1,020 

160 

557 

Poultry,  

150  • 

730 

7,243 

1,092 

1 

* Owner  and  Tenant  Farms. 


try  farming  requires  skill  on  the  part  of  the  operator,  the  re- 
quirements are  not  so  broad  as  for  many  other  types  of  farming, 
making  the  business  more  easy  to  acquire. 

Capital 

It  is  sometimes  stated  that  the  same  amount  of  capital  is  re- 
quired for  success  in  any  type  of  farming.  However,  for  poultry 
farming,  the  amount  necessary  for  success  is  less  than  for  the 
other  types  found  in  this  state.  This  is  a decided  advantage. 
For  a young  man  to  start  out  and  earn  sufficient  capital  to  buy 
and  equip  the  average  farm  to-day,  is  a difficult  task.  For  the 


30 


Bulletin  329 

man  from  the  city,  who  has  but  $5,ooO'  to  $10,000  saved  from 
his  earnings,  capital  is  usually  his  limiting  factor  for  success. 
So  far  as  the  results  of  the  survey  of  all  the  farm  types  that  have 
been  studied  in  this  department  show,  poultry  raising  is  the  most 
successful  operation  for  farmers  having  small  capital. 

Amount  of  Capital  and  Distribution 

The  average  capital  per  farm  was  $7,243,  a very  moderate 
sum  when  compared  with  that  of  other  farm  types  in  New 
Jersey.-  Of  this  amount,  76.9  per  cent  is  in  real  estate  and  15.8 
per  cent  in  stock,  4.3  per  cent  in  machinery,  1.5  per  cent  in  sup- 

Table  4 

Amount  and  Distribution  of  Capital  on  ijo  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


CAPITAL  PER 
FARM 

Number  of  Farms 

Real  Estate! 

Stock 

Machinery 

Feed  and 
Supplies 

Cash 

Total  Capital 

Value 

Per  Cent 
of  Total 

Value 

Per  Cent 
of  Total 

Value 

Per  Cent 
of  Total 

Value 

Per  Cent 
of  Total 

Value 

Per  Cent 

of  Total 

$3,000  or  less,  . . . 

1 

.31 

1 

$1,9(>0| 

70.9 

1 i 

1 .$43l(  17.4 

1 

1 $60.70 

2.7 

$33.30 

1 

1.5 

$33.30 

1.5 

$2,470 

$3,001  to  $5,000, , . 

29 1 

1 3.217 

1 74.7 

1 802 1 18.0 

1 179.20 

4.2 

.54.10 

1.4 

49.10 

1.1 

4,298 

$5,001  to  $7,000, . . 

4r,| 

4,038 

78.41  9051  15.0 

1 229.90 

3.9 

61.60 

1.0 

04.80 

1.1 

5,924 

$7,001  to  $9,000,.  . 

38 

1 0.125 

1 70.01  1.307]  10.3 

! .329.50 

4.1 

117.60 

1.51 

116.20 

1.5 

7,995 

$9,001  to  $11,000,. 

22 

1 7.0731 

1 77. 9|  1,4501  14.8 

411.80 

4.2 

163.50 

1.7 

138.40 

1.4 

9,841 

$11,001  and  over. 

18 

1 9,7.31 

1 75.11  1.8.371  14.8 

1 1 1 

! 709.30 
1 

5.5 

302.40 

2.3 

296.90 

2.3 

12,876 

l.")0| 

j .$5,572 

1 1 1 

1 7G.9l$l,14Gj  15.8 

1 

j$310.30 

4.3 

$109.00 

1.5 

$105.10 

1.5 

$7,243 

plies  and  1.5  per  cent  in  cash.  The  proportion  in  real  estate  is 
small  when  compared  with  that  of  other  types  of  farming,  but 
the  buildings  are  worth  an  average  of  $2,925,  or  52  per  cent  of 
the  real  estate  value.  The  poultryman’s  dwelling  is  worth  $1,662, 
or  about  30  per  cent  of  the  total  real  estate  value.  Much  of  this 
investment  is  necessary  for  the  operator’s  house.  The  necessary 
investment  in  land  is  comparatively  small,  yet  the  value  per  acre 
is  $480,  a comparatively  large  amount.  The  buildings  and  fences 
added  to  the  land  have  materially  raised  the  acre  value,  the  build- 
ings alone  having  an  acre  value  of  $250,  leaving  an  acre  value 
for  land  and  fences  of  $230.  The  average  value  of  land  itself 
was  about  $200  per  acre.  This  value  is  largely  on  account  of 

vSec  N.  j.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  ILillctins  294,  312  and  320. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  31 

location  and  not  because  of  high  fertility.  Prices  have  increased 
much  during  the  last  few  years. 

Amount  of  Capital  and  Labor  Income 

Like  other  types  of  farming,  greater  profits  are  derived  when 
sufficient  capital  is  available  for  conducting  an  economic  busi- 
ness of  large  volume.  On  these  150  poultry  farms,  profits  in- 
creased with  each  increased  investment  until  the  class  of  farms 
having  over  $11,000  was  reached  (table  5).  This  class  had 
slightly  decreased  profits. 


Table  5 

Relation  of  Capital  to  Profits  on  130  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


CAPITAL 

No.  of 
Farms 

i 

Average 

Capital 

Birds  Per 
Farm 

Labor 

Income 

Investment 
Per  Bird 

$3,000  or  less,  

3 

$2,470 

332 

$196 

$7.44 

$3,001  to  $5,000 

29 

4,298 

513 

351 

8.38 

$5,001  to  $7,000 

45 

5,924 

616 

580 

9.63 

$7,001  to  $9,000 

38 

7,995 

852 

743 

9.38 

$9,001  to  $11,000 

22 

9,841 

923 

1,270 

10.66 

$11,001  and  over,  

13 

1 

12,876  I 

i 

1,095 

1,259 

11.76 

1 

150  1 

1 

$7,243  j 

737 

$730 

$9.83 

Though  the  number  of  farms  is  too  small  to  permit  the  draw- 
ing of  absolute  conclusions,  these  data  would  tend  to  show  that 
an  investment  of  $15,000  or  more,  in  the  hands  of  the  average 
poultryman,  would  not  return  so  great  a profit  as  $10,000  to 
$12,000.  The  highest  labor  income  ($3,867)  was  obtained  from 
an  investment  of  $10,910.  The  highest  amount  of  capital  per 
farm  was  $15,455,  and  the  labor  income  from  this  farm  was 
$1,216.  The  investment  per  bird  increases  with  increased  capital. 
Apparently,  this  increased  capital  is  for  a larger  business  as  well 
as  a more  pretentious  outlay.  This  large  investment  has  been 
made  from  the  standpoint  of  pleasure  as  well  as  of  business. 

The  lowest  investment  per  farm  was  $2,131,  and  this  farm 
gave  a minus  labor  income  of  $208.  The  greatest  loss  was  a 
minus  labor  income  of  $1,013,  on  a farm  where  the  capital 
amounted  to  $6,092.  Much  of  this  loss  was  due  to  sickness  and 
dying  of  the  chickens. 

5* 


32 


BuIvIvETIN  329 

Return  on  Capital  Invested 


The  capitalist  is  usually  most  interested  in  the  rate  of  interest 
he  will  receive  on  the  money  he  invests.  • The  farmer  is  more 
interested  in  the  total  return  above  his  5 per  cent  interest  charge. 


Fig.  2.  Relation  of  Capital  to  Labor  Income  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey. 

If  $15,000  will  return  $2,550  above  expenses,  the  return  would 
be  at  the  rate  of  17  per  cent  on  the  investment.  Should  the 


PRoms  ON  150  P0U1.TRY  Farms  in  New  Jersey  33 

farmer  invest  $10,000  and  receive  $1,800  above  expenses,  the 
return  on  the  money  invested  would  be  18  per  cent,  or  a higher 
rate  of  interest,  but  less  money  is  left  for  the  farmer  to  live 
upon  after  deducting  the  5 per  cent  interest.  In  such  a case  the 
operator  could  afford  to  increase  his  business  with  a $5,000 
added  investment  and  be  more  prosperous.  The  farmer  views 
the  business  as  a unit  from  which  to  obtain  a living,  and  not  as 
a mere  investment. 

TabivE  6 

Relation  of  Capital  to  Return  on  Investment  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey 


CAPITAL 

No.  of 

Farms 

Return  Per 
$1,000  Invested 

Per  Cent 
Return 

$3,000  or  less,  

3 

$129 

132 

12.9 

$3,001  to  $5,000  

29 

13.2 

$5,001  to  $7,000,  

45 

138 

13.8 

$7,001  to  $9,000,  

38 

143 

14.3 

$9,001  to  $11,000,  

22 

179 

17.9 

$11,001  and  over,  

13 

148 

14.8 

150 

$151 

15.1 

The  average  return  on  the  investment  was  15.1  per  cent  (table 
6).  To  obtain  this  the  operator  gave  all  his  time  and  supervi- 
sion. The  highest  return  was  obtained  for  an  investment  of 
$9,000  to  $11,000.  This  appears  to  be  the  most  efficiently  capi- 
talized unit  for  these  poultry  farms.  A man  should  have  at 
least  $5,000  to  $7,000  before  he  can  hope  to  be  moderately  suc- 
cessful with  poultry. 

Size 

The  size  of  these  poultry  farms  is  best  measured  by  the  num- 
ber of  fowls  per  farm  or  per  flock.  In  most  types  of  farming 
we  usually  find  that  the  size  of  farm,  number  of  crop  acres,  or 
the  amount  of  livestock  should  be  above  the  average  in  size  to  be 
most  profitable. 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Labor  Income 

The  average  number  of  chickens  per  flock  on  these  farms  was 
736,  of  which  17  were  cockerels.  There  was  an  average  of  43 


34 


Bulletin  329 


hens  per  cockerel.  The  labor  income  for  these  flocks  increased 
with  each  increase  in  size  of  flock.  The  lowest  labor  income  per 
flock  was  received  on  farms  having  less  than  300  birds,  while  the 
highest  was  from  the  farms  having  over  1500  birds  per  flock 
(table  7). 


Table  7 

Relation  of  Number  of  Fowls  per  Flock  to  Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in 

New  Jersey 


Number  of 
Fowls  per 
Flock 

Number  of  Farms 

1 

Average  Number 
of  Fowls  Per 

1 Flock,  Nov.  1, 

1 1915 

Average  Number 
of  Hens  per 

Flock,  Nov.  1, 

1915 

' Cockerels  Per 

j Flock 

Number  of  Hens 

Per  Cockerel 

Labor  Income 

Labor  Income 

Per  Hen 

Number  With 

Minus  Labor  In- 

come 

.300  or  less,  . . 

19 

255.7 

249.1 

6.6 

37.8 

$178 

$0.71 

7 

301  to  500, . . 

42 

446.2 

437.5 

8.7 

50.0 

313 

0.71 

8 

501  to  700, . . 

29 

621.2 

607.8 

13.4 

45.6 

423 

0.69 

8 

701  to  900,,. 

23 

842.5 

823.7 

18.8 

43.7 

779 

0.94 

1 

901  to  1100,. . 

12 

1025.5 

998.0 

27.5 

36.2 

1,387 

1.39 

1 

1101  to  1500,.. 

17 

1338.8 

1308.8 

30.0 

43.6 

1,668 

1.27 

2 

1501  and  over, 

8 

1806.8 

1757.5 

49.3 

35.5 

2,217 

1.26 

0 

Average,  . . . 

150 

736.8 

719.8 

16.9 

42.4 

$730 

$1.01 

27 

These  flocks  have  not,  as  a class,  become  too  large  for  the 
greatest  profit.  The  greatest  profit  per  hen  was  obtained  from 
flocks  of  from  900  to  iiou  birds.  Larger  than  this,  the  profits 
per  bird  began  to  decrease.  When  smaller  than  this,  the  profits 
likewise  decreased.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  individual  hen, 
this  was  the  most  efficient  unit,  or  size  of  flock.  But  for  larger 
total  profits  per  flock,  a larger  number  of  birds  is  necessary. 
The  8 farms  having  an  average  of  1807  fowls  per  farm  gave  the 
largest  labor  income.  How  much  more  these  flocks  could  be 
increased  and  bring  a larger  profit  is  not  shown  on  these  farms. 
It  appears,  however,  that  the  profits  per  bird  begin  to  decrease, 
since  the  labor  income  per  hen  is  only  $1.26  in  the  largest  class, 
apparently  as  the  result  of  the  greater  size  of  flock.  Should  a 
man  wish  to  keep  or  develop  a poultry  industry  of  great  size,  it 
probably  would  be  advisable  to  maintain  units  of  a certain  size, 
that  is,  about  2000  fowls  per  unit  or  a flock  each  large  enough  to 
keep  two  men  busy  throughout  the  year. 


PRoms  ON  150  PouIvTry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  35 


Fig.  3.  Relation  of  Number  of  Fowls  per  Flock  to  Labor  Income  on  150 
Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey. 


Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Farm  Organization 

In  all  business  there  is  a certain  size  which  is  most  desirable 
and  most  profitable,  because  this  size  allows  the  most  efficient 
■operation,  of  man  labor,  horse  labor,  machinery  and  buildings 
all  costing  less  in  proportion  to  the  service  they  render  in  pro- 
ducing crops  and  stock  products. 


3^ 


Bui^IvETin  329 


In  the  average  flock  it  rec[uired  one  man’s  time  for  almost  two 
months  to  care  for  100  fowls,  and  in  the  small  flocks  4.3  months, 
while  in  the  8 largest  flocks  one  man  cared  for  100  birds  in  1.6 
months  (table  8).  When  the  man’s  time  is  reduced  to  money 
value,  we  find  it  cost  $182  to  care  for  100  birds  per  year  in  the 
small  flocks,  while  in  the  large  flocks  it  cost  but  $65,  or  a trifle 
above  one-third  as  much.  The  average  cost  per  100  birds  was 
$81  per  year  for  man  labor.  With  such  a great  difference  in 
labor  cost  per  100  birds  for  the  large  flocks,  it  should  be  much 
easier  to  make  more  money  per  hen.  The  larger  flocks  are  far 
more  efficient  units  for  operation  than  the  smaller  ones. 


Table  8 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Labor  Expense  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey 


NUMBER  OF  FOWLS  PER 
FLOCK 

Number  of  Farms 

Labor  Cost  Per 

Farm  Besides  Ope- 
rator’s 

Months  Worked 
by  Operator 

Total  Man  Labor; 
Months 

Months  of  Man  La- 
bor Per  100  Birds 

Total  Value  of  Man 
Labor 

Cost  Per  100  Birds 

Number  of  Horses 

Per  Farm 

300  or  less 

1 

19  1 

1 

$18,101 

10.5] 

10.9 

4.3 

$465 

1S2 

0.6 

301  to  500 

42  1 

69.001 

10.4] 

12.1 

2.7 

517 

115 

0.5 

501  to  700,  

29  1 

.33.501 

11.6] 

12.4 

2.0 

530 

85 

0.2 

701  to  900 

23  1 

104.101 

11.7] 

14.2 

1.7 

606 

72 

0.5 

901  to  1100 

12  1 

185.10] 

12.0] 

16.4 

1.6 

700 

68 

0.5 

1101  to  1500,  

17  1 

2.56.80] 

11.9] 

18.0 

1.3 

770 

57 

0.6 

1501  and  over,  

8 I 

668.60] 

1 1 

11.2] 

27.2 

t 

1.6 

1161 

64 

1.1 

Average,  

150 

.$123.9o| 

1 1 

_ -| 

11.2] 

1 

1.92 

1 

$597| 

81 

0.5 

1 

Horse  labor  on  these  farms  was  relatively  unimportant.  Less 
than  half  of  the  farms  had  horses.  There  were  75  horses  on 
150  farms.  Many  farms  had  no  need  for  horse  labor  except  a 
small  garden  and  patch  for  roots  and  green  feed,  such  as  cabbage. 
For  this  they  could  hire  horse  labor  far  cheaper  than  they  could 
keep  a horse  and  do  it  themselves.  Around  the  Vineland  area 
many  poultrymen  took  their  eggs  to  the  trolley  car  in  wheel- 
barrows. This  was  the  cheapest  form  of  transportation  found  in 
the  area. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  37 

The  total  value  of  equipment  per  farm  increases  but  not  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  crop  acres  (table  9).  The  value  of 
the  equipment  used  for  poultry  alone  decreased  approximately 
50  per  cent  on  the  larger  farms.  After  a size  of  700  to  900 
fowls  per  flock  was  reached,  the  efficiency  in  the  use  of  poultry 
equipment  no  longer  increased  to  any  apparent  extent.  As  far 
as  the  use  of  poultry  equipment  was  concerned,  a flock  of  701  to 
1100  was  as  efficient  as  or  more  efficient  than  any  other  size. 


MontKs  Ma.a  Labor 

per  100  Birds 


Fig.  4.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Labor  Expense  on  150  Poultry  Farms 

in  New  Jersey. 

The  building  investment  (table  lo)  shows  very  much  the  same 
relation  to  size  of  flock  as  equipment  and  labor.  The  average 
value  of  poultry  buildings  per  bird  was  $1.54.  On  the  smallest 
class  of  farms  this  was  $2.79,  while  on  the  largest  it  was  $1.09 
per  bird,  or  less  than  half  as  great.  When  we  usually  find  that 


38 


BuIvLKTIN  329 


the  rate  of  depreciation  on  buildings  is  3 per  cent,  the  interest  5 
or  6 per  cent  and  insurance  i per  cent,  or  a total  of  about  10  per 
cent,  we  can  appreciate  the  difference  in  the  charge  for  building 
cost  per  hen.  This  would  amount  tO'  about  27  cents  per  hen 
for  the  small  flocks  and  1 1 cents  per  hen  for  the  large  ones.  This 
is  a large  item  for  overhead  expense. 


Table  9 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Equipment  Investment  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in 

New  Jersey 


FOWLS  PER 
FLOCK 

No.  of 
Farms 

Total  Equipment 

Poultry  Equipment 

Per  Farm 

Per  Crop 
Acre 

Per  100 
Birds 

Per 

Farm  j 

1 Per  100 

1 Birds 

300  or  less 

19 

$183 

$46 

$72 

1 

$152  1 

1 

1 $59 

301  to  500 

42 

232 

52 

53 

157  1 

1 35 

501  to  700 

29 

280 

95 

45 

234  1 

1 38 

701  to  900,  

23 

291 

95 

35 

231  1 

1 28 

901  to  1100,  

12 

282 

58 

28 

210  1 

1 21 

1101  to  1500 

17 

545 

69 

41 

452 

34 

1501  and  over,  

8 

I 

720 

74 

39 

346 

19 

150 

$310 

$67 

1 

“$42 

1 

$230 

$31 

Table  10 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Building  Investment  on  130  Poultry  Farms  in 

New  Jersey 


Farm  Value 

Jltry 

Bird 

Total 

Value 

FOWLS  PER  FLOCK 

Dwelling 

Colony  House 

Brooder 

House 

Feed  House 

All  Poultry 
Buildings 

Value  of  Poi 
Buildings  Per 

Proportion  of 
Real  Estate 

^500  or  less,  

$1357 

$67 

1 

$1171 

1 

1 $107 

1 

1 $714 

$2.79 

Per  Cent 

16 

301  to  500 

1731 

51 

205 

105 

1 955 

2.14 

17 

501  to  700,  

1741 

54 

203 1 

no 

1 996 

1.60 

18 

701  to  900,  

1598 

92 

263 

157 

1 1125 

1 1.33 

21 

901  to  1100 

16.58 

1 206 

384 

1 160 

1206 

1 1.17 

19 

1101  to  1500 

17121 

i 179 

1 3341 

1 206 

1 1781 

1.33 

29 

1501  and  over 

1813 

1 150 

1 

1 350 

1 

1 375 

1 

1 2138 

1.09 

30 

Average,  

$1662 

1 

1 $89 

1 

1 $233 

1 

1 

1 $137 

1 

j $1135 

$1.54 

1 

1 20 

The  ix)ultryman’s  dwelling  on  most  of  these  farms  was  modest 
and  not  so  pretentious  as  the  dwellings  on  some  other  types,  such 
as  potato,  dairy,  truck  or  general  farms.  However,  most  of 
them  were  comfortable  and  adequate. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  39 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flocks  to  Receipts  and  Expenses 

All  business  will  reach  a point  of  diminishing  returns,  if  in- 
creased indefinitely.  Whether  these  poultry  farms  in  the  largest 
class  are  returning  the  largest  receipts  per  hen  might  be  ques- 
tioned by  the  small-flock  enthusiast. 


Fig.  5.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Equipment  Investment  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 


The  egg  production  per  hen  as  well  as  the  egg  receipts  per 
hen  are  about  the  same  regardless  of  the  size  of  flock.  Conse- 
quently, the  large  flocks  are  not  too  large  for  normal  production. 
The  total  receipts  per  bird  are  greater  on  the  farms  having  a 
small  number  of  birds  per  flock  because  proportionally  more 
chickens  are  raised.  These  chickens  were  included  in  the  inven- 
6* 


40 


BuIvIvETin  329 


tory  at  the  end  of  the  year,  and  considered  in  the  calculations  the 
same  as  a receipt.  The  crop  receipts  are  likewise  somewhat 
greater.  Another  significant  fact  about  these  small  flocks  is  that 


Fig.  6.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Building  Investment  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

more  old  hens  are  kept  over  for  the  following  year.  Only  one- 
third  of  the  flock  is  sold  as  culls  during  the  year,  while  for  the 
larger  flocks  about  half  are  sold  as  culls.  The  poultrymen  who 


Table  ii 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Receipts  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


SIMOJ  PIO  SB 
PXOS  8IAVOJ  JO  juao  aa<3 


« © Ml 

Mt  M' 


CO  fo  10  © (N 


W (N  <N  CO 


niJB^  .lej  s0tBg  clojo 


M 02 
O 


aniBA 


jaqtnnK 


ontBA 


© 04  (N  © t-  iH  © 

€/&•  iH  rH  (N  CO 


51001^  a.n; 
-na  JO  juao  aaj 


jaqcanf^ 


aniBA 


Td 

00  CO 
IN  IN 


jaqran^^ 


nan  JOd 


CO  IN  IN  N CO  IN  CO 


tnjBa  Jaj 


iN  c«  00 


nan  JOJ 
aiqBX  poB  Sui 
-qajBH  Joj  pasfi 


10  CD 
CO  CD 


N IN  Ml  © ID  © 04 


nan  Jaj  ibjojc 


Sc  $ $ $ ^ 

^ no  t-  © ^4 


42 


Bui.le:tin  329 

have  small  flocks  are  endeavoring  to  increase  their  size  and  con- 
sequently sell  fewer  old  fowls,  as  well  as  raise  a larger  propor- 
tion of  chickens.  Since  more  old  fowls  are  kept  over,  it  might 
be  expected  that  the  egg  production  per  hen  would  be  less,  but  this 
does  not  prove  to  be  the  case,  as  it  is  somewhat  above  the  aver- 
age. 

Table  12 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Expenses  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


FOWLS  PER  FLOCK 

Total  Expense 

Depreciation 

Per  Cent  of 

Deaths 

Feed  Cost 

Amount  of 

Receipts  Above  Ex- 

pense Per  Bird 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

Per  Dozen 

Eggs  Sold 

300 

, 1 
or  less,  

$845 

1 

$3.30 

$109 

1 

$0.04 

1 

4.5 

$632 

$2.47 

$0.28 

$1.80 

301 

to  500,  

1236 

2.77 

140 

.03 

4.3 

896 

2.01 

.23 

1.43 

501 

to  700 

1383 

2.22 

144 

.02 

8.0 

1057 

1.70 

.28 

1.28 

701 

to  900,  

1724 

2.04 

143 

.02 

5.5 

1329 

1.58 

.20 

1.36 

901 

to  1100 

2251 

2.20 

165 

.02 

5.4 

1712 

1.67 

.18 

2.40 

1101 

to  1500,  

30011 

2.24 

198 

.01 

11.0 

2321 

1.73 

.21 

1.76 

1501 

and  over,  

40971 

1 2.26 

1 

215 

1 

.01 

7.6 

i 

3038 

1.68 

.18 

1.74 

Average,  

$1726 

1 $2.34| 
1 

1 

^ $1501 

j $0,021 

1 

7.1 

1 

$1301 

$1.76 

$0.21 

1 

1 $1.48 

The  average  expense  per  flock  on  these  farms  was  $1726, 
while  the  average  receipts  were  $2818,  leaving  a farm  income  of 
$1092  (table  12).  In  addition  to  this,  the  operator  had  his  house 
in  which  to  live,  and  produce  for  his  own  use  from  his  farm. 

The  expense  per  bird  was  about  the  same  after  flocks  of  over 
500  were  reached.  The  expense  per  dozen  eggs  produced  was 
about  the  same  in  flocks  of  700  birds  and  above.  The  deprecia- 
tion of  equipment  decreased  up  until  900-bird  flocks  were 
reached.  In  a flock  of  1000  or  more  hens,  the  profits  were 
greater  than  in  smaller  flocks,  because  the  business  was  of  greater 
size  and  not  because  it  was  more  economical.  The  maximum 
efficiency  of  operation  per  bird  or  dozen  of  eggs  produced  was 
reached  on  the  plant  of  about  1000  birds.  These  plants  could  be 
increased  to  advantage  until  the  receipts  per  bird  decreased  or 
the  expenses  per  bird  increased  to  the  point  where  there  is  no 
longer  any  profit.  The  size  of  the  flock  where  this  would  occur  is 
not  shown  on  these  farms.  Apparently  no  class  had  reached  the 
size  for  maximum  profits.  Probably  a unit  of  2000  to  3000  birds 
would  be  about  the  most  profitable. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nfw  Jersey  43 


Relation  of  Sisc  of  Flock  to  Investment 


When  investing  money  in  a business  it  is  essential  that  the 
investment  be  made  in  such  a way  that  it  will  provide  for  a large 
production  at  a relative  low  overhead  cost  for  buildings,  equip- 


Fig.  7.  Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Expenses  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in 

New  Jersey. 


ment,  land,  etc.  On  poultry  farms,  the  operator  should  have  as 
large  a proportion  of  his  capital  as  feasible  in  poultry,  and  only 
sufficient  in  overhead  investment  as  to  provide  for  the  proper 
care  of  the  birds. 


44 


BuIvIvETin  329 
Table  13 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Proportion  of  Investment  in  Poultry  on  150 
Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


FOWLS  PER 
FLOCK 

Capital 

Per  Cent 
of  Capital 
in  Livestock 

Total  Per 
Farm 

Real  Estate 
Per  Farm 

Livestock 

Per  Farm 

Cash  Per 
Farm 

300  or  less,.. 

$5221 

$4368 

$594 

$36 

11 

301  to  500, . . . 

1 6687 

5532 

818 

55 

12 

501  to  700, . . . 

6922 

5526 

955 

82 

14 

701  to  900, . . . 

7035 

5322 

1211 

102 

16 

901  to  1100,.. 

8410 

6375 

1492 

137 

18 

1101  to  1500, . . 

9212 

6179 

1896 

263 

21 

1501  and  over. 

10779 

7025 

2571 

244 

24 

$7243 

1 . 

$5572 

$1146 

$105 

16 

On  the  farms  having  the  largest  flocks  24  per  cent  of  all  the 
capital  was  in  stock,  while  on  the  farms  with  small  flocks  only 
II  per  cent  was  in  poultry  (table  13).  The  average  stock  in- 
vestment was  16  per  cent.  Since  the  poultry  on  these  farms  is 


almost  the  only  source  of  income,  it  is  important  to  have  as 
large  a proportion  of  the  capital  in  it  as  possible.  Capital  in- 
vested in  buildings  and  equipment  brings  no  returns;  it  simply 
provides  the  facilities  for  caring  for  the  birds  so  that  they  will 
afford  an  income.  Consequently,  the  poultryman’s  problem  is  to 
invest  money  so  as  to  have  adequate  facilities  for  the  poultry. 


without  incurring  an  undue  overhead  expense. 


Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  the  Number  of  Years  the  Operator 
has  been  in  the  Poultry  Business 

All  the  foregoing  data  have  shown  that  the  larger  flocks  on 
these  areas  were  the  more  profitable.  If  this  is  true  we  might 
conclude  that  after  a man  had  gained  experience,  skill  and  capi- 
tal, he  would  increase  the  number  of  1)irds  per  flock. 

As  the  poultrymen  gain  in  experience  and  capital  they  increase 
the  size  of  their  flock  (tal)le  14).  Starting  with  a small  flock, 
they  graduall}^  add  to  it  until  they  have  over  1500  hens.  This 
too  is  a good  indication  that  a flock  of  1500  to  2500  is  about  the 
most  profitable  for  the  farms  found  in  the  state. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nfw  Jersey  45 


Tabi<e  14 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Number  of  Years  the  Operator  has  been  in  the 
Poultry  Business  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


FOWLS  PER  FLOCK 

Years 

Operator 

Has  Raised 
Poultry 

nr  Iprs  

3.8  years 

4.6  years 

6.4  years 

7.1  years 

7.5  years 

9.2  years 
18.7  years 

301  to  500  

501  to  700,  

701  to  900  

901  to  1100,  

1101  to  1500  

1501  and  over,  

Average,  

6.7  years 

Production 

The  number  of  eggs  produced  per  hen  is  important  in  just 
the  same  way  as  the  amount  of  milk  per  cow  or  the  yield  per 
acre  is  important  in  making  a profit  on  the  farm.  This  phase 
of  the  poultry  industry  has  received  more  attention  from  poultry- 
men  than  any  other.  To  accentuate  its  importance,  egg-laying 
contests  have  been  conducted  in  the  various  states,  poultrymen 
have^  trap-nested  their  hens  to  find  the  individuals  that  laid  the 
largest  number  of  eggs,  while  different  methods  of  feeding  and 
housing  have  been  studied  to  find  the  factors  best  suited  tO'  egg 
production. 


Relation  of  Production  to  Profits 

Since  the  public  has  been  giving  so  much  attention  to  produc- 
tion we  would  expect  it  to  be  one  of  the  big  factors  which  in- 
fluence profits  in  the  poultry  flock.  At  the  same  time,  the  poul- 
tryman  does  not  always  appreciate  the  full  relation  between  the 
number  of  eggs  produced  per  hen  and  profits. 

These  poultrymen  did  not  begin  to  make  money  until  their 
hens  produced  90  or  more  eggs  per  year  (table  15).  They  then 
made  about  as  much  as  a hired  man  could  make.  But  above  this 
point  they  began  to  make  good  profits.  The  men  who  sold  148 
eggs  per  hen  received  a labor  income  of  $1823.  None  of  these  lost 
money.  There  were  only  16  poultrymen,  or  10  per  cent  of  the 


46 


BuIvLETin  329 


total,  who  obtained  a production  of  40  eggs  (37  per  cent)  above 
the  average  production  per  hen  for  all  the  150  farms.  This  aver- 
age was  109  eggs,  of  which  103  were  sold.  The  average  produc- 
tion in  the  state  in  1909  was  67  eggs,  according  to  the  1910 
census.  A large  proportion  of  the  eggs  are  produced  by  the 
farm  flock,  which  is  a minor  enterprise  or  side-issue  on  most 
farms.  In  such  cases  the  eggs  are  usually  produced  at  a smaller 
feed  and  labor  cost  per  hen,  as  many  farm  flocks  are  allowed  to 
hunt  the  major  portion  of  their  living  throughout  the  summer. 
Consequently,  for  a profit  they  need  not  produce  so  many  eggs 
as  a purely  commercial  flock.  The  production  in  a commercial 
flock  should  be  not  much  less  than  30  per  cent,  or  no  eggs  per 
hen,  in  order  to  pay  profits  under  normal  conditions.  This  re- 
quires a well-bred  hen  that  will  respond  to  care  and  feed.  At 
present,  with  the  high  price  of  grain,  this  should  be  about  120 
or  more  eggs  per  hen. 

Table  15 

Relation  of  Egg  Production  per  Hen  to  Labor  Income  on  150  Poultry  Farms 

in  New  Jersey 


EGGS  PER  HEN 

Number  of  Farms 

Eggs  Per  Hen 

Eggs  Sold  Per 

Hen 

Egg  Receipts 

Per  Hen 

Hens  Per  Farm 

Average  Labor 
Income 

Number  with 
Minus  Labor  In- 
come 

60  or  less 

9 

46 

46 

$1.30 

1 

505 

—$176 

1 

6 

61  to  80 

13 

68 

66 

1.90 

673 

— 67 

10 

81  to  100 

32 

91 

88 

2.30 

650 

312 

5 

101  to  120 

53 

108 

104 

2.90 

785 

775 

4 

121  to  140 

27 

126 

120 

3.40 

717 

1173 

2 

141  and  over,  

16 

1 

155 

1 

148 

1 

4.20 

808 

1823 

0 

1 

150 

1 

1 

1 109 

1 

1 103 

1 

$2.90 

720 

$730 

27 

1 

The  highest-producing  flock  found  in  the  survey  produced  an 
average  of  186^  eggs  per  hen.  There  were  only  350  hens  in 
the  flock,  of  which  300  were  pullets.  The  receipts  for  eggs  sold 
were  $1935,  or  $5.83  per  hen.  This  owner  of  this  flock  also  sold 
1400  baby  chicks  at  12  cents  per  chick,  amounting  to  $168,  150 
yearling  hens  for  $90,  and  600  cockerels  at  33  cents,  amounting  to 
$200,  making  a total  of  receipts  from  these  sources  of  $458. 
Besides  this  he  raised  550  pullets.  The  total  sales  from  poultry 
with  the  increased  value  of  his  flock  at  the  end  of  the  year 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nfw  Jersey  47 

amounted  to  $3121,  or  $8.92  per  hen,  of  which  $5.53  was  for 
eggs  and  $3.39  was  for  chickens  raised  and  sold.  This  man 


Fig.  8.  Relation  of  Egg  Production  per  Hen  to  Labor  Income  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 


bought  $iio6  worth  of  feed  at  a cost  of  $3.16  per  bird. 
The  capital  of  this  farm  was  invested  as  follows : 


48 


Bui^letin  329 


Real  Estate,  $6,000 

Dwelling,  15O0 

Poultry  Building 1050 

Land  (10  acres),  3450 

Livestock,  1197 

Machinery,  427  ^ 

Feed 125 

Cash,  125 


Total $7874 


The  livestock  consisted  entirely  of  poultry,  except  for  one 
horse  valued  at  $75  and  one  cow  valued  at  $60.  Of  the  machin- 
ery, about  $250  was  for  the  poultry.  This  consisted  of  3 in- 
cubators, a gasoline  engine,  brooders  and  minor  equipment. 

The  total  expenses  were  $1465,  of  which  $200  was  for  labor 
on  fruit.  The  receipts  from  this  fruit  were  $125;  consequently, 
it  was  a loss  for  the  farm.  This  man  had  been  farming  for 
3 years,  and  was  attempting  to  raise  fruit  and  some  truck  with 
his  poultry.  The  poultry  was  paying,  but  the  truck  and  fruit 
were  not.  The  farm  income  was  $1603  and  the  labor  income 
was  $1249,  a large  labor  income  for  350  hens  and  10  cockerels. 

Thus,  so  far  as  production  has  increased,  profits  have  in- 
creased. On  none  of  these  farms  has  the  average  production  of 
the  flocks  been  doubled.  When  a class  of  farms  such  as  these 
is  found,  where  the  industry  is  highly  developed,  it  is  not  easy 
to  increase  production  to  a great  extent  above  the  average. 
Only  ten  per  cent  reached  a production  over  37  per  cent  above 
the  average,  while  the  highest-producing  flock  was  only  72  per 
cent  above  the  average.  There  is  a limit  to  the  extent  to  which 
production  can  be  increased.  It  is  but  one  of  the  factors  neces- 
sary for  success  in  the  poultry  industry  though  one  of  the  most 
important. 

Relation  of  Production  to  Expenses  and  Receipts 

It  is  not  proper  to  consider  the  difference  between  feed  cost  of 
the  hen  and  egg  receipts  as  profit.  Besides  this  item  we  have 
increased  labor,  increased  investment,  depreciation  of  birds,  and 
other  minor  items  which  enter  into  the  expenses  of  production 
and  usually  are  increased  when  production  is  increased.  Con- 
sequently, the  profits  of  increased  production  are  not  always  so 
large  as  they  may  appear. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  49 

The  expenses  per  bird  increase  as  production  increases,  but 
not  so  rapidly  (table  16).  But  with  the  higher-producing  classes 
the  current  expenses  have  increased  more  rapidly,  showing  that 


Table  16 

Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Expenses  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nezv 

Jersey 


EGGS  PER  HEN 

♦Current 

Expense 

Peed  Cost 

Birds  Per  Farm 

Total  Labor 

Per  Flock 

! 

Per  Bird 

Per  Farm 

Per  Bird 

Per  Dozen 

Eggs 

Months  Per 

Flock 

Months  Per 

100  Birds 

Cost  Per 

100  Birds 

60  or  less 

$1049 

$2.00 

$774 

$1.48 

$0.40 

524 

11.5 

2.2 

$93 

61  to  80 

1467 

2.09 

1126 

1.65 

0.30 

689 

11.9 

1.7 

72 

81  to  100 

1421 

2.12 

1107 

1.66 

0.23 

666 

12.3 

1.8 

76 

101  to  120,  

1862 

2.32 

1397 

1.75 

0.24 

802 

15.2 

1.9 

81 

121  to  140 

1837 

2.50 

1376 

1.88 

0.19 

733 

14.5 

1.9 

81 

141  and  over,  

2308 

2.79 

1693 

2.04 

1 

0.16 

1 

826 

16.9 

2.0 

84 

$1726 

j $2.34 

$1301 

$1.76 

1 

$0.21 

737 

14.1 

1.9 

$81 

* Not  including  operator’s  labor. 


Table  17 

Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Receipts  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey 


EGGS  PER  HEN 

Total 

Receipts 

Egg 

Receipts 

Receipts  from  Fowls 
Sold  Per  Flock 

Receipts  from  Crops 
Sold  Per  Farm 

Receipts  Above 
Expenses 

Per  Farm 

Per  Bird 

Per  Farm 

Per  Hen 

Per  Farm 

Per  Bird 

60  or  less 

$1144 

$2.20 

$680 

$1.30 

$342 

$78 

$95 

$0.17 

61  to  80,  

17331 

1 2.501 

. 1260 

1.90 

. 383 

74 

286 

.42 

81  to  100 

20501 

1 3.10 

1549 

2.30 

465 

36 

629 

.94 

101  to  120 

30091 

3.70 

2302 

2.90 

663 

30 

1127 

1.43 

121  to  140 

34151 

4.60 

2458 

3.40 

767 

144 

1578.5 

2.15 

141  and  over,  

^ 4540| 

5.50 

1 

3408 

4.20 

1 

1045 

1 

70 

2232 

2.70 

$2818 

$3.82 

$2100 

1 $2.90 

$636 

$62 

$1092 

$1.48 

if  production  were  increased  too  much,  the  increased  cost  might 
equal  or  exceed  the  receipts  from  increased  production.  The 
feed  cost  per  bird  increased  from  $1.48  to  $2.04,  a difference 
of  over  25  per  cent.  The  feed  cost  per  dozen  eggs  decreased 


50 


BUI.I.ETIN  329 


fV 


from  40'  cents  to  16  cents,  or  60  per  cent.  Thus  while  the  cost 
per  bird  increased,  the  cost  per  dozen  eggs  decreased  two  and 
two-fifths  times  as  fast.  But  the  decrease  in  cost  per  dozen  was 


Expense  per  Bird 


Eqqs  [oeY  Hen 


Fig.  9.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Expense  per  Bird  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

far  less  rapid  for  the  higher-producing  classes.  The  first  in- 
crease in  production  made  a difference  of  10  cents  per  dozen  less, 
Avhile  the  last  increase  made  a difference  of  only  3 cents  less 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nkw  Jersey 


51 


than  that  of  the  preceding  class.  Were  a much  higher  increase 
attempted,  the  cost  per  dozen  of  eggs  might  have  increased. 
Feed  was  not  the  only  item  of  increased  cost  for  high  production, 
as  more  labor  was  required.  If  we  eliminate  the  flocks  that  pro- 
duced less  than  60  eggs  per  hen,  we  find  that  the  cost  of  labor 


MoYitKs’ La,bor  pfcT  100  Birds 


Eggs  per  Hen 


Fig.  10.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Months’  Labor  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

increased  from  $72'  per  loO'  hens,  for  the  68-egg  class,  tO'  $84 
for  the  155-egg  class,  or  an  increased  cost  of  $12  per  100  birds. 
This  includes  only  current  expenses.  To  get  the  total  cost  would 
require  the  difference  in  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  equip- 
ment, buildings  and  stock.  The  feed  cost  in  these  flocks  was 
only  about  half  the  total  cost  of  egg  production. 


52 


BuIvIvETIN  329 


The  receipts  per  farm  were  $2,818,  or  $3.82  per  bird  (table 
17).  The  receipts  for  the  highest-producing  birds  were  two 
and  one-half  times  as  great  as  for  the  lowest  producers,  while 


Feed  cost  per  Bird 


Fig.  11.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Feed  Cost  per  Bird  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

the  expenses  increased  only  39  per  cent.  The  proportionate  in- 
crease of  egg  receipts  was  greater  than  that  of  the  total  receipts. 
The  amount  of  the  receipts  above  expenses  was  $0.17  for  the 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  53, 

lowest  producers  and  $2.70  for  the  highest  producers.  If  interest 
and  the  operator’s  labor  were  charged,  the  poultrymen  having 
these  low  producers  would  be  losing  money.  Not  until  they  got 


Feed  cost  per  Dozen.  Elg^s 


Fig.  12.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Feed  Cost  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

about  90  eggs  per  hen  did  they  have  wages  for  their  labor  and 
interest  on  their  capital  invested.  Production  above  this  point 
brought  profits. 

With  the  present  cost  of  feed  this  production  would  need  to 
be  raised,  since  the  margin  of  profit  per  bird  is  less  on  the  bird 
of  average  production.  Probably  it  would  require  a flock  with 


54  Bui^IvETin  329 

a yearly  production  of  108  to  120  eggs  per  bird  to  make  wages 
and  interest  on  the  investment.  Production  greater  than  this 


Fig.  13.  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Receipts  on  150  Poultry  Farms 

in  New  Jersey. 


would  bring  ])rofits.  Consequently,  at  no  other  time  has  pro- 
duction per  hen  commanded  such  a high  premium  as  the  present 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  55 

with  the  high  price  of  feed.  Low-producmg  flocks  will  be  forced 
out  of  existence,  because  the  owners  cannot  afford  to  keep  such 
hens. 

Relation  of  Production  to  Investment 


The  public  seldom  stops  to  consider  that  increased  production 
of  livestock  usually  calls  for  increased  investment  of  capital  in 
buildings,  equipment  and  stock.  Such,  however,  is  almost  in- 
variably the  case.  Table  18  shows  the  extent  to  which  this 
principle  applies  to  poultry. 


Table  18 


Relation  of  Production  to  Building,  Equipment,  Real  Estate  Investment  and 
Value  per  Bird  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


i 

Poultry- 

Value 

1 

Value  of 
Poultry 
Equipment 

S 1 
^ 1 

Value  of 
Poultry 
Buildings 

Acres  of 
Range 

EGGS  PER  HEN 

Total  Capital 
Per  Farm 

Real  Estate 
Per  Farm 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

Per  Farm 

Per  100  Birds 

04 

o; 

a 

; cu 

1 

i ^ 

Per  Farm 

Per  100  Birds 

Per  Farm  I 

Per  100  Birds 

60  or  less 

1 

$54311 

1 

$42111  $7731 

$1.45 

$256 

$31 

sq.  ft. 
4.2 

$941 

$17.9 

5.2] 

1.0 

61  to  80 

81  to  100 

70671 

57121  882i 

1.28 

123 

18 

3.7 

1029 

14.9 

2.9 

0.4 

6331 1 

4986 

1 829' 

1.24 

153 

23 

3.9 

973 

14.6 

3.3 

0.5 

101  to  120 

121  to  140 

74151 

5710 

1 1057 

! 1.32 

226 

28 

3.6 

1131 

14.1 

2.9 

0.4 

81091 

6233 

1 983 

1 1.34 

260 

35 

4.0 

1227 

16.7 

3.7 

0.5 

141  and  over,  .... 

81891 

1 5819 

1 1223 

1 1.48 

1 

340 

41 

5.0 

1 

1511 

18.2 

3.3 

0.4 

$7243 

1 1 

1 $55721  $981 

1 $1.31' 

$230 

1 $31 

1 

1 

j 3.9 

$1135 

$15.4 

3.3 

0.45 

The  total  capital  per  farm  increased  from  $5,431  to  $8,189 
with  the  increase  in  production.  The  value  of  the  poultry  itself 
is  greater  per  bird.  Among  the  lowest-producing  birds  there 
was  a larger  proportion  of  pullets,  increasing  the  value  per  bird 
in  these  flocks  more  than  that  of  the  normal.  In  spite  of  this, 
however,  the  value  is  not  quite  so  high  as  that  of  the  highest 
producing  hens.  It  is  natural  that  birds  bred  for  high  egg  pro- 
duction should  be  valued  more  highly  than  the  low  producers. 

The  investment  in  poultry  equipment  increased  from  $18  per 
100  birds  with  the  68-egg  hens,  tO'  $41  per  100  birds  with  the 
148-egg  hens.  The  building  value  for  these  same  classes  in- 
creased from  $14.90  to  $18.20.  The  range  area  is  about  the 


5^  BuIvIvETin  329 

same  for  both  classes,  but  the  floor  space  in  buildings  is  some- 
what greater  for  the  high  producers. 


"Poultry  EaulpmcYit 

per  100  Birds 


Fig.  14,  Relation  of  Production  per  Hen  to  Poultry  Equipment  on  150 
Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 

Relation  of  Production  to  the  Experience  of  the  Operator 

Low  production  per  hen  may  be  due  to  the  inexperience  of 
the  operator  as  well  as  to  careless  methods.  For  the  class  of 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  57 

hens  laying  the  lowest  number  of  eggs  this  appears  to  be  the 
case,  but  this  is  the  only  class  that  is  influenced  by  the  operator’s 
inexperience.  Consec[uently,  the  variation  in  production  of  the 
other  classes  of  farms  is  due  to  breeding  and  methods  of  opera- 
tion not  influenced  by  the  lack  of  experience,  but  rather  to  the 
lack  of  good  care  and  lack  of  study  for  profitable  production. 
The  influence  of  experience  on  profits  and  other  phases  of 
poultry  raising  is  discussed  in  the  following  section. 


Table  19 

Relation  of  Production  to  Experience  of  the  Operator  and  Proportion  of 
Flock  as  Pullets  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


EGGS  PER  HEN 

No.  of  Farms 

Hens  Per 

Flock 

Yearlings 

Per  Flock 

Pullets 

Per  Flock 

Per  Cent. 

Pullets 

Years’ 

Experience 

of  Operator 

60  or  less 

9 

505 

1 

1 109 

396 

78.4 

2.3 

61  to  80,  

13 

673 

1 275 

398 

59.1 

6.2 

81  to  100,  

32 

650 

254 

396 

60.9 

5.8 

101  to  120 

53 

785 

310 

475 

60.5 

9.2 

121  to  140,  

27 

717 

285 

432 

60.2 

5.5 

141  and  over 

16 

808 

305 

503 

62.2 

5.4 

150 

1 

1 719 

1 

1 

1 277.8 

1 

442 

61.4 

6.7 

Experience 

In  all  lines  of  work  experience  is  a great  asset.  Too  frequently 
the  man  who  contemplates  a change  of  life  and  work  from  the 
city  to  the  farm  fails  tO'  appreciate  the  importance  of  experience. 
The  “would-be”r  farmer  may  have  spent  his  boyhood  vacation  on 
some  relative’s  farm,  or  may  have  observed  farming  while  travel- 
ing through  the  country.  From  his  observations,  he  usually 
feels  that  farming  is  an  industry  in  which  almost  any  one  can 
readily  succeed.  For  most  types  of  farming  it  is  quite  otherwise. 
Because  of  lack  of  experience,  not  many  city  people,  who  were 
city  bred,  succeed  in  farming  operations.  One  great  difficulty 
of  this  change  is  that  the  city  man  is  not  accustomed  to  manual 
labor.  A baseball  player  learns  to  throw  a ball  in  his  youth.  At 
that  time  it  is  easier  to  acquire  such  skill.  The  same  kind  of 
skill  is  necessary  for  the  farmer.  He  too  acquires  it  in  his 
youth  working  on  his  father’s  farm. 


58 


BuIvLETIN  329 


Poultry  farming  presents  a somewhat  different  problem.  Feed- 
ing and  caring  for  hens  does  not  require  quite  the  same  kind  of 
skill  as  plowing,  pitching  hay,  driving  a team  and  operating  farm 
machinery.  Consequently,  this  type  of  farming  is  far  easier  for 
the  city  man  to  acquire.  A study  of  the  history  of  these  poultry- 
men  informs  us  that  most  of  them  have  entered  the  industry 
without  previous  experience.  In  the  Vineland  area,  40’  per  cent 
of  those  who  took  up  poultry  farming  failed  and  returned  to  the 
city,  while  the  other  60^  per  cent  remained  and  were  successful 
after  a few  years’  experience.  When  we  compare  this  with  the 
proportion  of  failures  in  business  in  the  city,  it  is  not  so  large. 
It  appears  that  poultry  farming  lends  itself  well  for  the  city  man 
who  wishes  to  make  a living  in  the  country. 

This  is  due  to  a number  of  factors  : 

1.  Poultry  raising  is  the  type  of  farming  that  lends  itself  best 
to  the  inexperienced  man  in  acquiring  the  necessary  experience. 

2.  Less  capital  is  required  for  poultry  farming. 

3.  Poultry  appeals  more  strongly  tO'  the  city-bred  man. 

Former  Occupations  of  Poultrynien 

The  following  occupations  were  followed  by  poultrymen 
included  in  this  survey  before  they  were  engaged  in  poultry 
farming : 

Shopmen  (moulders),  sailor,  salesman,  common  laborer,  book- 
keeper, foundry  worker,  teachers,  iron  workers,  glass  workers, 
chemical  engineers,  decorator,  accountant,  postmaster,  saloon 
keeper,  carpenter,  hackmen,  produce  commission  merchant,  con- 
tractor, railroad  engineer,  draughtsman,  photographer,  restaurant 
keeper,  shoeman,  musician,  soldier. 

Relation  of  Experience  to  Profits 

If  experience  is  of  value  it  should  show  in  the  profits  on  these 
poultry  farms  when  they  are  classified  according  to  the  experi- 
ence of  the  poultryman.  Real  estate  men  interested  in  selling 
poultry  farms  are  at  times  inclined  to  under-rate  the  value  of 
exjierience  to  a city-l)red  man  who  is  considering  a change  from 
his  position  in  the  city  to  a poultry  farm  in  the  country.  He  may 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  59 


tell  his  prospective  purchaser  that  the  purchase  of  the  farm  and 
flock  will  assure  the  poultryman  a steady,  sure  and  regular  in- 
come for  life.  The  novice  may  think  that  the  major  part  of  his 
work  will  be  merely  to  feed  his  fowls  and  gather  the  eggs. 
Table  20  shows  the  fallacy  of  such  belief  and  strongly  empha- 
sizes the  value  of  experience.  Still,  though  handicapped  by  lack 
of  experience,  poultrymen  who  had  been  in  business  one  to  two 
years  made  a labor  income  of  $362,  a fair  laborer’s  wage,  while 
learning  the  business. 

Table  20 

Relation  of  Experience  on  the  Farm  to  Profits  and  Capital  on  150  Poultry- 
Farms  in  New  Jersey 


YEARS’  EXPERIENCE 

OF  OPERATOR 

Number 
of  Farms 

Capi 

a 

CO 

u 

O) 

C14 

(0 

Per  100 

Birds 

Labor 

Income 

No.  With 

Minus 

Labor 

Income 

1 to  2 

11 

1 $6220 

$911 

$362 

3 

2.1  to  4 

44 

1 6469 

1025 

392 

11 

4.1  to  6,  

35 

1 6754 

908 

720 

8 

6.1  to  8,  

23 

7923 

911 

722 

2 

8.1  to  10,  

13 

9202 

1101 

1002 

2 

Over  10 

24 

1 

8127 

1653 

1344 

1 

150 

$7243 

$921 

$730 

27 

About  one-fourth  of  all  the  men  who  had  less  than  6 years’ 
experience  lost  money,  while  of  those  who  had  8 or  more  years’ 
experience  less  than  one  out  of  ten  was  losing  money.  (Ex- 
perience was  a partial  insurance  against  failure.)  The  labor  in- 
come of  those  who  were  in  the  business  but  i to  2.  years  was 
$362,  while  that  of  the  men  who  had  over  10  years’  experience 
was  $1344,  almost  four  times  as  great  The  capital  was  some- 
what less  for  the  men  who  were  m the  business  but  a short  time. 
However,  the  difference  was  not  great  enough  to  make  so  large 
a difference  in  labor  income.  The  capital-  invested  per  hundred 
birds  was  about  the  same  until  the  men  were  in  business  over  8 
years,  when  it  increased. 


6o 


Bulletin  329 

Relation  of  Experience  to  Farm  Organization 

The  poultryman  usually  does  not  have  his  plant  so  well  organ- 
ized the  first  few  years;  he  may  not  be  able  to  operate  a large 


Labor  Income 


Fig.  15.  Relation  of  Years’  Experience  to  Labor  Income  on  150  Poultry 
Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

flock,  and  he  may  not  be  sure  what  is  the  proper  kind  of  equip- 
ment to  buy.  Table  21  illustrates  the  way  the  poultry  farm  is 
developed  by  the  amateur  poultryman. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  61 


Table  21 

Relation  of  Experience  of  Operator  to  Organization  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in 

New  Jersey 


YEARS’ 

EXPERIENCE 

OF  OPERATOR 

Hens  Per  Flock 

Cockerels  Per  Flock 

Proportion  Pullets — 
Per  Cent 

Value  of  Poultry 
Equipment 

Value  of  Poultry 
Buildings 

Value  of  Crops  Sold 

Per  Farm 

1 

Per  Farm 

Per  100  Birds 

Per  Farm 

Per  100  Birds 

1 to  2,  

1 

593 

11 

65.2 

$155 

$27 

$1110 

$163 

$134 

2.1  to  4 

522 

11 

70.4 

181 

32 

995 

158 

29 

4.1  to  6 

663 

15 

60.1 

226  1 

33 

878 

123 

104 

6.1  to  8 

813 

21 

55.3 

243 

1 29 

1276 

147 

30 

8.1  to  10 

731 

18 

65.3 

385 

51 

1452 

176 

120 

Over  10 

1075 

1 

30 

1 

56. 

265  1 

1 

1 24 

I 

1430 

131 

34 

719.8 

16.9 

61.4 

$230 

$31 

$1135 

$145 

$62 

The  amateur  started  with  a flock  of  593  birds,  and  increased 
up  to  1075  after  10  years’  experience.  Hie  has  a larger  propor- 
tion of  pullets  and  a heavier  investment  in  poultry  buildings. 
Besides  this,  he  tries  to  grow  more  crops.  As  the  poultryman 
gains  in  experience,  he  tends  to  specialize  more  on  poultry,  ex- 
clusive of  all  else.  He  appears  to  find  specialization  the  most 
profitable  for  his  business. 

The  capital  is  increased  (table  20)  with  experience,  but  largely 
through  the  size  of  the  flock  of  birds. 


Relation  of  Experience  to  Receipts  and  Expenses. 

The  former  data  show  that  experienced  operators  make  greater 
profits,  that  they  have  more  capital  invested  but  that  the  greater 
profits  cannot  be  due  entirely  to  difference  in  capital.  Apparently 
they  are  operating  their  flocks  at  a lower  cost  or  getting  greater 
receipts  for  their  efforts  and  money  expended.  This  is  where 
we  might  expect  the  advantage  of  experience  to  show  largely. 

The  men  who  have  been  in  business  10  years  or  more  (table 
22)  operate  their  flocks  at  a lower  cost  per  100  birds.  When 
the  value  of  the  operator’s  labor  is  included,  the  difference  is 
still  greater.  The  labor  cost  for  the  i to  2-year  class  is  $99.70 
per  100  birds,  while  that  of  the  poultrymen  with  over  10  years’ 


62 


Bui^letin  329 


experience  is  only  $74.60,  a difference  of  $25.10,  or  one-quarter 
less.  There  also  appears  to  be  some  difference  in  the  cost  of  feed 
per  bird.  The  total  farm  expenses  were  greater  for  the  more  ex-^ 
perienced  men,  but  the  expenses  per  bird  in  most  cases  were  less.. 


Table  22 

Relation  of  Experience  of  the  Operator  to  Expenses  on  150  Poultry  Farms  itv 

New  Jersey 


YEARS’ 

EXPERIENCE 

OF  OPERATOR 

♦Total  Expense 

Cost  of  Labor 

Cost  of 

Feed 

Per 

Flock 

Per  100 
Birds 

Per  Flock 

Per  100 

Birds 

Per 

Flock 

Per  100 

Birds 

1 to  2,  

$1506 

$249.30 

$602 

$99.70 

$1129 

$187 

2.1  to  4,  

1318 

234.10 

493 

87.60 

999 

177 

4.1  to  6 

1 1587 

234.00 

586 

86.40 

1189 

176 

6.1  to  8,  

I 1953 

234.10 

551 

66.10 

534 

184 

8.1  to  10,  

2010 

268.30 

642 

85.70 

544 

206 

Over  10,  

1 2406 

1 

217.70 

824 

74.60 

1 

1746 

157 

1 

1 $1726 

1 

$234.20 

$597 

$81.00 

$1301 

$176 

* Not  including  Operators’  Labor. 


Table  23 

Relation  of  Experience  to  Operator’s  Receipts  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey 


YEARS’ 

EXPERIENCE 

OP  OPERATOR 

Total 

Receipts 

Poultry 

Receipts 

Egg 

Receipts 

Eggs  Per  Hen 

Receipts  Above  Ex- 
penses Per  Bird 

Per  Farm 

Per  100  Birds 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

1 to  2 1 

.$2179  1 

1 

.$361  1 

$2045 

$2.90 

1 

1 $1471 

$2.40 

97 

$1.12 

2.1  to  4,  

1 2036 

1 362 

1995 

3.10 

1 1467 

2.60 

99 

1.28 

4.1  to  6,  1 

2642 

1 390 

2225 

3.50 

1 1968 

2.90 

111 

1.66 

6.1  to  8 1 

3119 

1 381 

3090 

3.60 

1 2526 

3.10 

107 

1.47 

8. 1 to  10 

1 .3472 

1 463 

3232 

3.90 

1 2305 

3.10 

124 

1.95 

Over  10 

1 41.58 

1 

1 376 

1 

4106 

3.60 

1 3222 

1 

2.90 

114 

1.59 

1'  $2818 

1 

1 $382 

1 

j $2736  1 $3.70 

1 1 

1 

1 $2100 

1 

$2.90 

109 

j $1.48 

While  the  expenses  increased  $900  between  the  i to  2-year 
class  and  the  class  who  had  been  in  business  over  10  years,  the 
receipts  increased  $1979,  or  over  twice  as  much.  The  receipts 
per  bird  were  greatest  for  the  8 to  lo-year  class;  so  too  were 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nkw  Jersey  63 

the  receipts  above  expenses.  However,  the  men  in  the  business 
over  10  years  had  larger  hocks,  which  made  them  the  most 
efficient  class  for  profits,  even  though  their  profits  per  hen  were 
not  so  high  as  in  the  preceding  class.  These  men  had  a produc- 
tion of  1 14  eggs  per  hen,  while  the  8 to  lo-year  men  had  a pro- 
duction of  124  eggs  per  hen,  the  highest  for  any  class. 

Fifty  Years  a Poultryman 

One  poultryman  was  on  his  farm  for  50  years,  longer  than 
any  other  poultryman  in  the  survey.  He  had  $13,264  invested, 
of  which  $10,000  was  in  real  estate,  $2314  in  stock  ($2154  in 
poultry)  $550  in  equipment,  $200  in  feed  and  $200  in  cash.  He 
had  1650  birds.  Their  production  was  an  average  of  loS  eggs 
per  hen.  The  total  receipts  on  this  farm  were  $5306,  and  the 
expenses  $3193,  leaving  a farm  income  of  $2113,  or  a labor  in- 
come oi  $1450.  This  man  had  a labor  expense  of  $1000  and  did 
but  little  work  himself.  From  his  experience  and  knowledge  he 
was  able  to  make  a comfortable  living  by  directing  the  work. 
This  man  had  a record  of  success  that  was  well  worth  while. 

PUELETS  vs.  YEAREINGS 

Poultrymen  usually  recommend  that  the  major  portion  of  the 
flock  be  made  up  of  pullets  in  order  to  be  the  most  profitable  pro- 
ducers. The  hen  lays  a larger  number  of  eggs  the  first  year  of 
her  life  than  the  second,  and  a larger  number  the  second  year 
than  the  third,  decreasing  the  number  each  year  as  she  grows 
older.  The  poultrymen  of  these  farms  keep  a portion  of  their 
flock  as  yearlings  and  the  remainder  as  pullets.  The  best  pullets 
are  kept  the  second  year  as  yearlings  and  the  inferior  ones  sold. 
Those  sold  are  selected  according  to  the  best  judgment  of  the 
operator. 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Profits 

By  dividing  these  flocks  according  to  the  proportion  of  pullets 
and  yearlings,  the  advantage  or  disadvantage  of  keeping  a large 
proportion  of  yearlings  in  the  laying  flock  should  be  shown. 
Table  24  shows  this  relation  as  it  existed  on  these  farms. 


64 


Bulletin  329 


Table  24 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms 

in  New  Jersey 


0 

tH 

0 

1 

PER  CENT  OF 

0 

ta  a 

1 i 

a 

§ 

c 

PULLETS  LAYING  IN 

% <« 

ai 

.H  S 

fa 

FLOCK 

a e 

aj  a 

fa 

c3 

CO  a 

u 

0 

5 3 

3 3 

0 3 

•in  ^ 

tO 

08 

CUfe 

cuoi 

Wfa 

50  or  less 

19 

276 

475 

19 

37 

771 

$511 

50.1  to  61 

37 

450 

1 405  1 

1 19 

52 

874 

1034 

60.1  to  70,  

36 

556 

1 309 

23 

64 

888 

1062 

70.1  to  80,  

32 

470  1 

172 

16 

73 

659 

445 

80.1  to  00 

12 

412  1 

83 

8 

83 

503 

1 430 

90.1  to  100 

14 

312  1 

00 

‘ 1 

100  1 

316 

272 

1 

150  1 

442  1 

278 

1 

1 

1 

e.  |, 

737  1 

1 

$730 

The  most  profitable  flocks  contained  50  to  70  per  cent  of 
pullets.  Consequently,  according  to  these  data  the  flock  to  be 
properly  balanced  should  have  30  to  50  per  cent  of  yearlings. 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Receipts  and 

Expenses 

Whether  a flock  of  all  pullets  or  nearly  all  pullets  does  not 
lay  so  well,  or  whether  they  produce  eggs  at  a greater  expendi- 
ture of  feed  and  labor,  would  probably  determine  the  reason  for 
a greater  profit  for  the  farms  having  only  50  to  70  per  cent  of 
pullets.  Table  25  shows  why  these  flocks  are  more  profitable. 
This  is  one  of  the  important  factors  for  the  successful  poultry- 
man  and  should  be  fully  appreciated. 

The  poultrymen  whose  flocks  have  50  to  70  per  cent  of  their 
number  in  pullets  o1)tain  greater  total  receipts  per  flock  and  per 
hen  than  any  other  class.  They  also  receive  the  highest  number 
of  eggs  per  hen,  except  the  class  having  80  to  90  per  cent  of 
their  flock  in  pullets.  A well  balanced  flock  must  carry  30  to 
50  per  cent  of  yearlings  to  produce  eggs  for  hatching.  Other- 
wise, the  poultryman  will  need  to  buy  his  eggs  for  hatching. 
This  allows  the  development  of  a better  flock,  with  good  vitality 
and  enough  old  hens  to  give  it  stal)ility.  The  average  proportion 
of  pullets  on  these  farms  was  61  per  cent.  They  have  just  about 
the  right  proportion  on  the  average.  However,  about  half  of 
these  poultrymen  have  either  too  many  or  too  few  pullets.  Most 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  65 


of  them  have  too  few.  The  production  is  cut  down  by  too  large 
a number  of  old  hens.  The  farms  having  all  pullets  had  the 
lowest  production.  Part  of  this  low  production  may  have  been 


Laibor  iTficoTnfc 


Fig.  16.  Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Labor  Income  on  150 
Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey. 

due  to  the  inexperience  of  the  operator.  Table  22  shows  that 
these  all-pullet  farms  were  operated  by  men  who  had  an  average 
of  2.6  years’  experience. 


66 


Bui^letin  329 


With  the  different  proportions  of  pullets,  the  expenses  remain 
about  the  same  except  for  the  class  of  poultrymen  whose  flocks 
are  made  up  entirely  of  pullets.  For  these  the  expense  is  unduly 
increased,  because  they  are  raising  proportionally  more  young 
stock  than  the  operators  of  other  farms. 


Table  25 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Receipts  on  1^0  Poultry  Farms 

in  New  Jersey 


PER  CENT 

OF  PULLETS 

PER  FLOCK 

Total  Receipts 

Total  Poultry 
Receipts 

Egg  Receipts 

Dozen  Eggs 
Sold 

Per 

Farm 

Per 

Bird 

Per 

Flock 

Per 

Bird 

Per 

Flock 

Per 

Farm 

Per 

Hen 

50  or  less,  

$2571  1 

1 

$3.30 

1 

$2490'  1 

$3.20 

$2042 

$2.70 

6162 

8.2 

50.1  to  60,  

.3.397 

3.90 

.3326  1 

3.80 

2624 

3.10 

7832 

9.1 

60.1  to  70 

.3506 

3.90  1 

3409  1 

3.80 

2638 

3.40 

7711 

8.9 

70.1  to  80 

2297 

3.50 

2241  1 

3.40 

1689 

1 2.60 

5120 

8.0 

80.1  to  90 

2239 

4.50 

2106  1 

4.20 

1525  1 

3.10 

4496 

9.1 

90.1  to  100,  

1540 

4.90 

1455  1 

4.60 

845 

1 2.70 

i 

2398 

7.7 

1 

$2818 

1 

$3.82 

1 

$2736  1 

$3.70  1 
1 

$2100  1 

$2.90 

6238 

8.6 

Table  26 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Expenses  on  150  Poultry 

Farms  in  New  Jersey 


PER  CENT  OF 
PULLETS  PER 
FLOCK 

Total 

Expenses 

Labor 

Cost  of  Feed 

Per  Farm 

Per  Bird 

Months  Per 
Farm 

Months  per  ! 

100  Birds  ; 

Cost  Per  100 
Birds  ! 

Per  Flock 

Per  Bird 

Per  Dozen 

Eggs 

50  or  less,  | 

$1(>88 

1 $2.20 

1 

14.7 

1 1.9 

1 

$80.20 

1 

$1297 

$1.68 

1 

1 $0.20 

50.1  to  60,  

204)9 

2.40 

15.3 

1 

71.70 

1527 

1.74 

.19 

60.1  to  70,  

2060 

2.30 

15.3 

1.7 

71.70 

1566 

1.76 

.20 

70.1  to  80,  1 

1481 

2.20 

12.2 

1 1.9 

80.20 

1111 

1.68 

.21 

80.1  to  90,  

1 1402 

1 2.00 

14.7 

1 2.9 

122.40 

974 

1.93 

.21 

9P.1  to  100,  1 

1102 

1 

j 3.. 50  1 

11.4 

1 

1 3.6 

1 

151.90 

751 

2.37 

.31 

1 

1 

i $1726 

1 

j .$2.. 34  1 

i 

1 1.9 

1 

1 

1 $81.20 

I 

$1301 

$1.76 

$0.21 

1 - 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Capital 
Invested  and  Experience 

Since  the  men  included  in  this  survey  had  such  different  pro- 
portions of  their  flocks  in  pullets,  it  is  possible  that  their  capital 


Profits  on  150  PouIvTry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  67 

and  methods  of  investing  their  capital  varied  in  a similar  way. 
Table  27  shows  that  the  total  capital  on  these  farms  is  about 
the  same,  except  for  farms  having  all  pullets  at  the  beginning 
of  the  year.  The  value  of  the  real  estate  is  about  the  same  for 
all  but  the  farms  having  nothing  but  pullets.  The  value  of  the 
poultry  equipment  is  greater  on  the  farms  where  50  to  70  per 
cent  of  the  flock  are  pullets,  while  the  number  of  birds  per  flock 
decreases  as  the  proportion  of  pullets  increases. 


Table  27 

Relation  of  Proportion  of  Pullets  per  Flock  to  Capital  Invested  and  Oper- 
ator’s Experience  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nezv  Jersey 


PER  CENT 

OF  FLOCK 

IN  PULLETS 

Capital 

Per  Farm 

Value  of 

Real  Estate 

Per  Farm 

Number  of 

Birds 

Per  Farm 

Value  of  I’oul- 
try  Ecpiipment 

Per  Farm 

Years' 

Experience 

of  Operator 

50  or  less 

.'1:7418 

$5816 

771 

$202 

9.5 

50.1  to  60 

7086 

5151 

875 

276 

7.6 

60.1  to  70 1 

7658 

5700'  1 

8.88 

259 

6.0 

70.1  to  80 

7442 

5992 

1 659 

1 205 

7.8 

80.1  to  90 

8138 

67.50  1 

503 

194 

4.1 

O'.).!  to  100 

5124 

40.50 

1 316 

1 

163 

2.6 

$7243 

$5572  1 

1 

737 

1 

$230 

1 

6.7 

Men  who  have  less  than  50  per  cent  of  pullets  have  been  in 
the  business  over  9.5  years,  while  those  who  have  nearly  all 
pullets  have  been  in  the  business  only  2.6  years.  The  man  with 
least  experience  and  a small  flock  evidently  keeps  more  pullets 
because  he  is  increasing  the  size  of  his  flock  and  that  is  usually 
done  by  raising  more.  As  his  flock  increases  he  decreases  the 
proportion  to  50  per  cent  or  more.  Some  of  these  men  have  too 
large  a proportion  of  old  hens  for  the  maximum  profits.  As 
shown  above,  the  properly  balanced  flock  should  have  50  to  70 
per  cent  of  pullets  to  give  the  highest  egg  production,  allow  the 
sale  and  use  of  hatching  eggs,  and  maintain  the  vigor  of  the 
flock. 

Area  of  Poultry  Farms 

Poultry  can  be  kept  in  quite  close  quarters  without  much  ap- 
parent injury  to  the  egg-producing  ability  or  vitality  of  the 


68 


Bulletin  329 


flock.  Because  of  this  fact,  the  man  who  wishes  to  invest  but 
little  capital  in  farming  can  buy  a home  with  5 to  20  acres  of 
land,  and  after  erecting  his  poultry  building  and  laying  out  his 
yards  and  ranges,  he  is  equipped  for  the  poultry  business.  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  poultry  industry  has  been  studied  for 
years,  we  still  have  no  data  which  show  conclusively  that  a hen 
should  have  a certain  amount  of  space  for  range  or  yard  in  order 
to  lay  the  greatest  number  of  eggs.  The  average  size  of  these 
poultry  farms  was  11.6  acres.  The  smallest  farm  contained  i 
acre,  and  the  largest  150  acres.  This  is  a wide  range,  but  the 
most  important  point  is  to  determine  the  area  per  100  hens  that 
is  best  for  the  production  of  eggs  and  the  vitality  of  the  flock. 
This  might  be  expressed  in  terms  of  profit,  eggs  produced  per 
hen,  deaths  per  100  hens  or  in  other  ways. 


Relation  of  Area  to  Profits  and  Capital 


When  expressed  in  terms  of  labor  income  or  profit,  there  does 
not  appear  to  be  any  area  too  small  for  the  most  profitable  pro- 


Table  28 

Relation  of  Area  per  lOO  Birds  to  Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey 


1 

1 

Real 

Estate  Value 

ACRES  PER 

100  BIRDS 

No.  of  Farms 

Area  Per  Farn 

Area  Per 

100  Birds 

Crop  Acres 

Per  Farm 

Capital 

Per  Farm 

Per  Farm 

Per  Acre 

Per  100 

Birds 

Labor  Income 

0.5  or  less,  

26 

1 

1 Acres 

1 3.6 

Acres 

0.4 

1 

1.3 

1 

$7203 

1 $5473 

$1564 

$651 

$1056 

0.6  to  1.0 

47 

1 6.7 

0.9 

1 2.4 

7128 

1 5550 

828 

49'2 

663 

1.1  to  2.0 

43 

11.4 

1.5 

1 4.6 

7257 

1 5541 

489 

745 

743 

2.1  to  .3.0 

16 

1 16.6 

1 1.8 

1 6.8 

7532 

1 5937 

360 

947 

350 

0.1  and  over,  

18 

1 

1 32.5  1 

1 

I 4.9  1 12.7 

I 1 

7293 

1 

1 5567 

1 

171 

1 

540 

734 

1 

150 

1 

1 11.6 

1 

i 

1 1.6 

1 

1 4.6 

j $7243 

1 

$5572 

. $480 

$756 

$730 

duction  on  these  farms.  The  farms  having  the  smallest  area  per 
100  birds  had  a greater  acre  value.  This  is  largely  true  through- 
out the  Vineland  area  where  land  values  were  greater  than  in 
some  of  the  other  areas.  The  operators  of  some  of  these  farms 
were  paying  for  location  and  buildings  rather  than  land.  There 


Profits  on  150  Poui^try  Farms  in  New  Jersey  69 

were  26  farms  on  which  the  farm  area  for  their  chickens  aver- 
aged only  3.6  acres  (table  28).  In  spite  of  their  small  area  they 
had  the  largest  labor  income  of  all  classes. 

The  capital  invested  per  farm  was  about  the  same  regardless 
of  the  area.  It  appears  that  location  and  buildings  are  the  major 
consideration  in  the  purchase  of  one  of  these  poultry  farms. 
Close  confinement  of  birds  has  not  decreased  profits  or  appreci- 
ably affected  them.  This  is  another  advantage  for  the  poultry 
industry,  and  should  encourage  the  keeping  of  village  and  town 
flocks. 


Relation  of  Area  to  Production,  Receipts  and  Expenses 

If  the  small  areas  of  some  of  these  flocks  were  injurious  to 
the  health  of  the  fowls,  we  would  expect  a lower  egg  production, 
less  receipts  per  hen  and  a larger  percentage  of  deaths.  If  these 
factors  do  not  decrease  it  would  appear  that  3.6  acres  per  100 
birds  are  sufficient  to  maintain  their  health,  vigor  and  production 
under  the  soil  and  climatic  conditions  of  the  areas  studied. 


Table  29 

Relation  of  Area  per  loo  Birds  to  Egg  Production,  Receipts  per  Hen  and 
Per  Cent  of  Mortality  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


ACRES  PER 

100  BIRDS 

Dozens  of 

Eggs  Sold 

Total 

Receipts 

Number  of  Birds 

Per  Flock 

Value  Per  Bird  Sold 

Years’  Experience 
of  Operator 

Per  Farm 

Per  Hen 

Per  Flock 

Per  100 

Birds 

0.5 

or  loss,  1 

1 

7274  1 

8.5 

$3312 

1 

1 $379 

1 1 

873 

$0.25 

6.4 

0.6 

to  1.0  1 

6137  1 

8.6  1 

2705 

1 374 

721 

.35 

5.4 

1.1 

to  2.0 1 

6368  1 

8.8 

1 2877 

1 386 

743 

.37 

8.1 

2.1 

to  3.0 1 

5185 

1 8.5 

1 2360 

I 376 

627 

.28 

6.3 

.3.1 

and  ovpi- | 

1 

5632  1 

1 8.7 

1 

1 2667 

1 

1 403 

1 

661 

.47 

7.9 

6238 

8.6 

$2818 

1 

1 $382 

737 

$0.32 

6.7 

The  number  of  eggs  sold  per  bird  is  about  the  same  regardless 
of  the  area  per  100  birds,  while  the  same  is  true  of  receipts  (table 
29).  The  flocks  on  the  farms  having  the  smallest  areas  are 
somewhat  larger  than  on  those  of  a greater  area.  One  factor 
would  indicate  that  these  poultrymen  are  cramped  for  space  when 


70 


BULI.ETIN  329 


we  study  the  price  received  per  bird  sold.  Those  on  the  smaller 
areas  sold  the  young  cockerels  when  3 to  6 weeks  of  age,,  that  is, 
as  soon  as  they  can  distinguish  them,  for  the  very  low  price  of 
10  to  20  cents  apiece.  The  poultrymen  having  larger  areas  kept 
more  of  them  until  older,  when  they  were  sold  for  broilers.  If 
the  space  would  have  permitted,  probably  it  would  have  paid  all 
of  these  men  to  feed  and  fatten  their  own  cockerels  instead  of 
selling  them  to  some  one  else  to  fatten. 


TabivE  30 

Relation  of  Area  Per  100  Birds  to  Expenses  on  1^0  Poultry  Farms  in  New 

Jersey 


ACRES  PER 

100  BIRDS 

Total 

Expenses 

Feed  Cost 

Labor 

Cost  Per  100  Birds 

Per  Cent  of  Deaths 

of  Mature  Birds 

Amount  of  Receipts 

Above  Expenses  Per 

Bird 

Per  Farm 

Per  100  Birds 

Per  Flock 

Per  100  Birds 

Months  Per 
Flock 

Months  Per 

100  Birds 

0.5  or  less,  

$1815 

$216 

$1488 

$161 

13 

1.49 

$61.70 

6.6 

$1.63 

0.6  to  1.0 

1685 

236 

1298 

178 

14.1 

1.94 

81.80 

5.1 

1.28 

1.1  to  2.0 

1771 

2.38 

1343 

170 

13.8 

1.86 

78.30 

7.3 

1.48 

2.1  to  3.0,  

1635 

260 

1215 

193 

14.5 

2.33 

97.60 

11.6 

1.16 

3.1  and  over,  

1567 

1 

237 

1044 

157 

16.4  j 
1 

[ 2.48 

105.50 

9.0 

1.66 

1 1 

1 $1726  1 
1 1 

$234 

J 

$1301 

1 

1 $176 

1 

14.1  1 
1 

1.92 

$81.20 

7.1 

I 1 

$1.48 

The  expenses  in  these  flocks  do  not  appear  to  be  greatly  in- 
fluenced by  the  area  of  the  poultry  farm  (table  30).  The  only 
item  which  shows  any  difference  is  that  of  labor.  Flocks  on  the 
smaller  areas  are  kept  at  a smaller  cost  of  labor  per  bird.  To 
some  extent  this  would  be  influenced  by  the  size  of  the  flock, 
but  the  dilference  in  size  was  not  sufficient  to  make  such  a great 
difference  in  labor  cost.  Evidently,  flocks  kept  on  a smaller  area 
recjuire  less  labor  to  care  for  them. 

The  death  rate  is  not  quite  so  great  for  the  flocks  on  the 
smaller  areas.  If  the  small  amount  of  range  allowed  these 
flocks  were  detrimental,  it  should  show  in  the  death  rate.  They 
were  fully  as  healthy  as  those  on  the  more  extended  ranges.  For 
an  area  such  as  Vineland,  diseases  prevalent  in  one  flock  are 
much  inclined  to  s])read  throughout  the  entire  community  because 
of  the  close  proximity  of  these  farms.  This  is  a marked  disad- 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  71 

vantage  for  an  intensive  poultry  district  such  as  that  of  Vineland. 

The  feed  cost  per  bird  is  about  the  same  regardless  of  the  area. 
Although  there  is  some  variation,  it  does  not  appear  to  show 
much,  if  any,  difference  due  to  difference  in  area. 

From  these  data  it  appears  that  chickens  can  stand  close  con- 
finement without  injury.  Probably  the  most  serious  objection 
to  so  densely  populated  a poultry  section  is  the  close  contact  of 
the  individual  flocks  which  makes  the  spread  of  contagious 
diseases  dangerous.  One  of  the  most  troublesome  diseases  in 
this  section  was  chicken  pox.  The  year  of  this  survey  the  area 
was  quite  free  from  the  disease,  while  the  following  year  the 
disease  was  quite  prevalent.  This  made  the  death  rate  for 
1915-16  lower  than  normal,  and  gave  an  egg  production  about 
5 per  cent  above  normal.  This  disease  is  most  prevalent  in  the 
late  summer  for  about  six  weeks,  when  the  production  is  cut  to 
about  50  per  cent. 

Monthly  Egg  Production  and  Per  Cent  of  Total  Receipts 

Per  Month 

Mens  lay  the  major  portion  of  their  eggs  during  March,  April, 
May,  June  and  July.  Consequently,  at  this  time  of  the  year  the 


Table  31 

Relation  of  Month  of  the  Year  to  Egg  Production  and  Receipts  per  Flock  on 

S6  Poultry  Farms 


1 

MONTH 

1 Receipts 

1 Per  Cent 

Production 

Per  Cent 

Jann.iry 

7.7 

6.5 

February 

7.S 

S.5 

March 

1 10.0 

1 12.8 

April 

10.4  1 

i 14.1 

May,  

10.  .3 

1 13.7 

June 

9.4  1 

11.3 

July 

9.7 

9.7 

Auarust,  

9.1 

7.6 

September 

6.9 

4.9 

October 

5.4  1 

3.1 

November 

5.5 

1 3.2 

De^-ember 

1 

1 7.1  1 

1 

4.3 

1 

1 

100.0 

i 1 

1 100.0 

poultry  receipts  are  higher  than  during  other  portions  of  the  year. 
However,  the  price  of  eggs  will  vary  with  the  time  of  the  year  so 


72  Bulletin  329 

as  to  encourage  a greater  production  during  the  months  from 
August  to  March. 

By  hatching  early  chicks  this  production  can  be  modified  so 
as  to  give  a larger  egg  yield  while  the  higher  prices  for  eggs 
prevail. 


Fig.  17.  Monthly  Egg  Production  and  Gross  Receipts  per  Farm. 


Table  31  shows  the  per  cent  of  egg  production  for  the  year 
by  months  as  well  as  the  per  cent  of  receipts  for  the  year  by 
months. 

From  figure  18  it  will  he  noticed  that  if  the  high  point  of 
egg  production  could  be  shifted  from  the  spring  months  so  as 


Proi^its  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  73, 

to  make  a more  even  distribution  of  production,  the  poultry  men 
would  have  better  profits  for  the  entire  year. 


Percent  of  Production 
Percent  ofPeceipts- 


flonths 


Fig.  18.  Per  cent  of  Total  Yearly  Egg  Production  and  Total  Yearly  Egg 
Receipts  by  Months  per  Farm. 

Cost  of  Egg  Production 

By  separating  the  poultry  farms  on  which  nothing  but  poultry 
products  were  sold  we  can  figure  the  cost  of  producing  eggs 
on  commercial  poultry  farms.  There  were  lOO'  such  farms. 


74 


Bulletin  329 


Since  the  raising  of  young  stock  was  always  a part  of  the  busi- 
ness it  would  appear  proper  in  this  case  to  include  the  cost  of 
maintaining  the  farm  flock  in  calculating  the  cost  of  commercial 
egg  production.  For  most  kinds  of  livestock  this  would  not  be 
desirable,  but  on  these  poultry  farms  it  appears  more  satisfactory. 

On  November  i,  1915,  there  were  on  these  100  farms  75,898 
birds,  of  which  1,864  were  cockerels  (table  32).  The  cockerels 
were  considered  the  same  way  as  the  hens  in  reckoning  the  costs 
per  bird.  Also  the  total  cost  per  bird  includes  the  cost  of  raising 
young  stock  to  maintain  the  flock. 


Table  32 

Number  and  Value  of  Birds  on  lOO  Poultry  Farms  from  zvhieh  only  Poultry 

Pro  duets  zvere  Sold 


Beginning  of  Y'ear 
Nov.  1,  1915 

End  of 
Nov.  1, 

Year 

1916 

1 

i 

Number 

1 

Value  1 

Number 

1 

Value 

Pullets 

1 

1 46,509 

$69,921 

50,274 

$74,856 

Yearliufjs 

1 27,525 

30,433 

31,390 

35,822 

Cockerels,  

1 1,864 

1 

3.818 

2,333 

4.858 

Total 

1 75,898 

1 $101,172 

83,997 

$115,536 

1 

Value  per  bird,  | 

$1.37  1 

$1.37 

While  the  number  of  birds  had  increased  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  the  laying  flock  was  considered  as  the  number  of  hens  at 
the  beginning  of  the  year.  While  this  is  subject  to  slight  error, 
it  appeared  nearer  to  the  correct  number  than  any  modification 
of  this  number  that  might  be  made  to  allow  for  this  increase. 
Some  of  the  birds  (7.1  per  cent)  inventoried  at  the  beginning  of 
the  year  died,  while  still  others  were  culled  out  before  the  end 
of  the  year.  The  increased  number  of  pullets  and  yearlings  at 
the  end  of  the  year  would  approximate  the  loss  from  the  first 
inventory. 

Depreciation  of  Hens 

'Phe  depreciation  of  the  birds  is  an  item  of  much  importance 
and  should  be  carefully  considered  in  holding  over  pullets  and 
yearlings.  A hen  has  a meat  value  and  a laying  value.  The 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  75, 


latter  is  potential  and  will  almost  always  be  greater  than  her 
meat  value.  Consequently,  as  hens  grow  older  they  decrease  in 
potential  egg-laying  value  and  approach  their  meat  value. 


Table  33 

Deprcciatioji  of  Pullets  and  Yearlings  on  loo  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


KIND  OF  CHICKEN 

Value 

Per  Bird 

Depreciation 

Per  Bird  at 

EthI  of  Year 

Per  Cent 

Depreciation 

Per  Bird 

Pullet,  

t 

1 $1.53 

1.11 

.55 

1 

1 

1 .$0.42 

.56 

1 

1 20 

50 

Yearling I 

Two-Y"eai‘-01d,  

i 

By  the  time  these  pullets  become  two-year-old  hens  and  are 

sold  for  meat,  they  depreciate  from  $1.53  to  $0.55,  or  6.4  per 
cent  (table  33).  During  the  first  year  of  the  pullet’s  life,  she 
depreciates  from  $1.53  to  $1.1 1,  or  29  per  cent.  In  the  second 
year  she  depreciates  from  $1.1 1 to  $0.55,  or  50  per  cent,  when 
she  is  sold  for  her  meat  value.  The  death  rate  would  further 
enter  into  this  depreciation,  but  this  presumably  would  be  ap- 
proximately the  same  for  both  pullets  and  yearlings. 

Inasmuch  as  the  yearlings  depreciate  $0.14  per  hen  more  than 
pullets,  it  appears  that  they  should  lay  5.7  eggs  more  per  hen 
(when  eggs  sell  for  33.9  cents  per  dozen)  than  pullets  in  order 
to  be  as  profitable  as  the  latter.  This  would  be  true  were  it  not 
necessary  to  have  a certain  proportion  of  yearlings  in  the  flock 
to  act  as  a stabilizer  and  for  breeding  stock.  Beyond  the  number 
necessary  for  that  purpose  nO'  yearlings  should  be  kept  in  the 
place  of  pullets.  They  lay  fewer  eggs  per  hen  and  depreciate 
more  rapidly.  However,  if  pullets  at  the  end  of  the  year  had 
to  be  sold  for  their  meat  value,  then  their  depreciation  would  be 
64  per  cent,  or  $0.98.  In  that  case  they  would  need  to  lay  2.9 
dozens  more  (when  eggs  are  selling  at  33.9  cents  per  dozen) 
than  a 55-cent  hen  in  order  to  make  the  same  profit. 

Itemized  Costs  and  Receipts 

The  cost  of  egg  production  in  1916  expressed  in  dollars  and 
cents  would  not  be  the  same  as  in  1917  or  1918  when  prices  of 
feed,  labor  and  materials  have  changed.  But  the  amount  of  feed 


Table  34 

Cost  of  Egg  Production  on  loo  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 

Number  of  Chickens  No'vember  i,  1915 75,89^ 

Number  of  Chickens  November  i,  1916 83,997 


76 


Bulletin  329 


-212 


a;  C5 


PPPOpkO  •pppppppnoitononopnoppiopnono 
PnOTPlOlO  -r-inOr-inOrHe^lOlMDSIlMDlMlNr-IUOMDiDIW 

Cl 

Cl 

CO 

•H- 

OOt-'^COCOr-l  iO  00Pt-lO^Pr-ICDTj<C 

'trHQClOO'^P^DiOt-CJPPPt-lDaiH^C 
T}<OOPr-^P^OOlT-PPPTHTHOPPPC 
CO 

6^ 

1 

.001  1 

.036 

.01  1 

.118  1 

.037 

.621 

1 

1 l^’9$ 

1 

00  DJ  C 

P(NiOPCDOlt-lPlOPP0O--lt-aDOIt-CO<MPC 

(N>-iOo5<NCOPPOPCO--hOOPC1'-i>-<tHtHQC 

t-POP<HOTHC>rHCPpOP^PPCPPC 

.024 

.008 

.099 

.030 

.497 

CO 

>0 

Oi 

CO* 

1 

$131,052.00  1 

958.50  1 
431.38 

47.116.30 
9,606.42 

2.431.00  1 
7,702.0<i 

711.00 
11,787.00 

6.866.00 

3.019.00 

1.399.00 

6.020.00  1 

7.176.40  1 

9.768.40  1 

973.00  1 

1.311.00  1 

1.005.00  1 

910.00  1 

17.00  i 

70.00  1 

1.840.00  1 

651.50 

7.513.90 

2.314.00 

37.721.31  1 

1 

1 

$300,371.11  1 

1 

•B  r’  J M CD 


2 

o C3 ' o’  a, 

Sg^ScD^' 


^ i 


2?S§ 


C»PpCOrHl- 
^ CO  o o P ira  iH 
^ CO  ^ r-,  -H  00 


! ^ 

• a 
; 00 
. p 

• “'i, 

no 


:o§ 

•3  2 ^ .g  a 

•3? 

*i  cs’ooi'SS  caoia 
««sa;o32aa'S^ 
M Q CU  O O O M C fa  O 


c .2 

cs  c^ 


♦Cost  $0.02912  per  egg. 

fPer  cent  Increase  in  cost  of  keeping  hen  per  year. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  77 


and  labor  as  well  as  other  materials  and  items  expressed  in 
quantities  always  remain  about  the  same  regardless  of  price. 
Consequently,  in  making  up  the  items  entailed  in  the  cost  of 
production  the  quantities  are  more  important  and  the  values  can 
be  placed  upon  these  quantities  as  the  prices  would  vary  or  war- 
rant. For  a few  minor  items  the  quantities  were  not  obtained 
and  these  had  to  be  expressed  in  terms  of  money.  But  for  most 
of  them  the  quantities  are  given,  with  the  value  for  1916  ( tables 
34  and  35). 


Tabi^e  35 

Receipts  from  loo  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey 


Number  of  Chickens  November  i,  1915 75,898 

Number  of  Chickens  November  i,  1916 83,997 


Quantity 

Value  1 

Value  Per  Bird 
1917-18 

Per  Cent  In- 
crease 1917-18 

Over  1915-16 

Total 

Per  Hen 

Total 

Per  Hen 

Eggs  sold  (doz. ) ..| 

1 1 

1 620,827  1 8.38.0 

1 $210,463 

$2,842 

.$4,578 

1 62 

Eggs  used  in  house  (doz.) 

1 14.222 

1 .19 

1 4.811 

.064 

1 .104 

1 62 

Hatching  eggs  sold  (doz.),  

26,682 

.36 

9,045 

.122 

.153 

1 25 

Day-old  chicks  sold 

55,239 

.746 

6,808 

.091 

.114 

1 25 

Manure  (bbls.),  

16,518 

.222 

8,oor 

.108 

.162 

j 50 

Increased  Inventory  (birds),  

8.099 

.109 

11,364 

.153 

.191 

25 

Pullets  sold,  

11,116 

.15 

8,200 

.110 

.1.37 

25 

Yearlings  and  old  hens  sold,  

31,135 

1 .42 

17,162 

.231 

.277 

20 

Cockerels  sold 

61,735 

1 .833 

14,064 

.189 

.2.36 

25 

Birds  for  house  use 

1 5,200 

1 .07 

2,860 

1 .038 

.052 

10 

Appreciation,  

1 75,898 

1 .36% 

37,721 

1 .497 

.621 

25 

Custom  hatching 

1 

1 

264 

1 .003 

.003 

1 

Total  receipts,  

1 

1 926,671 

1 

i 

1 11.846 

I 

$330,763 

1 $4,448 

1 

1 

1 $6,628 

1 

1 *49.1 

i 

♦ Increase  in  earning  powsr  of  one  hen  per  year. 


Total  expenses 

Receipts  other  than  from  eggs, 

Cost  of  egg  production 

Cost  per  dozen  eggs,  

Man  labor  per  100  birds,  . . . 
Pounds  of  feed  per  100  birds, 

Value  per  bird,  

Profit  per  dozen  eggs 

Profit  per  ben,  


$.300,371.11 
106,444.00 
193,027.11 
0.293 
1.77  months 
8,297 
$1.37 
.046 
.41 


For  each  100  hens  possessed  by  the  poultrymen  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  year,  they  raised  78.3  to  mature  birds.  Besides 
these  birds  raised,  8.84  dozens  of  eggs  were  produced  per  hen 
with  the  given  materials  and  labor. 


Bulletin  329 


The  total  quantity  of  feed  consumed  was  82.97  pounds  per 
mature  bird,  which  included  the  amount  of  feed  used  for  the 
young  stock  grown  to  maintain  the  flock.  For  White  Leghorn 
hens  of  a production  such  as  these,  approximately  7 pounds  of 
feed  are  required  per  pound  of  eggs  produced  in  these  flocks. 
The  feed  cost  of  these  birds  was  but  44  per  cent  of  the  total  cost 
of  production.  Man  labor  comprised  19  per  cent,  loss  by  death 
7.1  per  cent,  and  depreciation  12.3  per  cent.  The  feed  cost  was 
not  nearly  so  large  as  one  ordinarily  expects  it  to  be.  Expressed 
in  terms  of  labor  and  feed,  it  required  701  pounds  of  grain  and 
3 hours  of  labor  to  feed  and  care  for  a hen  for  a year  on  these, 
poultry  farms,  after  deducting  feed  and  labor  for  young  stock. 

Comparative  Efeiciency  of  Animals  and  Poultry 

The  converting  of  grain  and  forage  into  meat  for  human 
consumption  is  a matter  of  vital  importance  in  the  food  produc- 
tion of  a densely-populated  nation.  As  the  nations  increase  in 
population,  the  per  capita  consumption  of  meats  and  animal 
products  gradually  decreases  because  the  grain  used  to  produce 
meat  is  needed  for  human  consumption.  The  converting  of  food 
from  grain  into  meat  is  a wasteful  process.  A hungry  man 
would  prefer  10  pounds  of  corn  to  i pound  of  beef,  or  7 pounds 
of  corn  to  i pound  of  eggs,  or  5 pounds  of  corn  to  i pound  of 
pork.  These  are  approximately  the  amounts  of  corn  necessary 
to  produce  one  pound  of  the  respective  meats  and  eggs.  Of  all 
the  different  animals  the  dairy  cow  is  the  most  efficient  in  con- 
verting vegetable  food  into  human  food  (table  36). 

When  the  return  is  based  upon  the  per  cent  of  protein  returned 
these  ty])es  of  stock  rank  as  follows  from  the  most  to  the  least 
efficient : 

1.  Dairy  cow. 

2.  Poultry. 

3-  Hog. 

4.  Steer. 

When  ranked  according  to  the  proportion  of  energy  returned 
of  tlie  production  value  of  food  eaten,  they  rank  as  follows : 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  79 

1.  Dairy  cow. 

2.  Hog. 

3.  Steer. 

4.  Poultry. 

Thus  in  densely-populated  centers,  dairy  cows  increase  and 
hogs  and  steers  decrease  in  proportion  to  the  population.  Poultry 

TABrE.  36* 

Proportion  of  Food  Eaten  by  Various  Classes  of  Livestock  that  is  Returned 

for  Human  Use'^ 


KIND  OF 

livestock 

1 

1 

Per  Cent  of  Pro- 
tein Returned 

Per  Cent  of  Energy 
Returned 

Of  Total 

Food 

Of  Digestible 
Protein 

Of  Total 

Food 

Of  Digestible 

Food 

Of  Production 

Value  of  Food 

Cow.-  

41.0 

48.9 

Cow, 3 

31.4 

40.6 

Dairv  herds,*  

1 14.7 

22.9 

10.0 

15.1 

33^8 

Steer, “ 

1 8.9 

1 

17.0 

Steer. 6 

6.4 

1 11.8 

4.7 

6.9 

14.8 

Hen,'!’  

16.1 

1 20.9 

7.1 

1 8.3 

14.1 

Poultry  flock,®  

I 14.5 

1 18.6 

6.4 

1 7.5 

12.6 

Hogs,»  

1 10.2 

1 

1 13.2 

1 15.1 

1 

1 17.5 

29.9 

1 Values  as  human  food  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Off.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  28  (Revised). 

~ A KXXj-pound  cow  giving  6000  pounds  of  4 per  cent  milk  based  on  Armsby’s  feeding 
standard.  (Armsby,  H.  P.,  1902,  Manual  of  Cattle  Feeding,  p.  4:?2. ) 

3 Similar  cow  raised  to  2 years  oni  Armsby’s  standard,  milked  5 years,  then  sold  as  lean 
beef. 

^ Food  eaten  by  5191  cows,  1078  heifers,  874  calves,  158  bulls,  in  Delaware  County,  New 
York.  Pasture  assumed  to  be  one-third  of  the  food.  Net  product:  24,(146,000  pounds  of  milk, 
100,000  pounds  of  skim-milk,  260  pounds  of  butter,  and  559  cows,  2.35  heifers,  62  bulls.  9 
calves  for  beef.  Most  of  the  calves  were  killed  and  thrown  away  at  birth. 

5 Steer  grown  to  1000  pounds  in  2 years,  then  fattened  2<X)  pounds  in  100  days,  by  Armsby’s 
standard.  Meat  counted  as  fat  beef. 

® All  food  eaten  l)y  a steer  that  grew  to  1588  pounds  in  3 years,  assumed  to  bo  fat  beef. 
(Ontario  Agr.  Col.  Rpt.  1893,  o.  122.) 

Food  and  product  of  1 ben,  average  of  1893  birds,  by  Warren. 

8 AH  feed  except  grass  for  an  average  of  1803  bens  and  60  roosters  kept  one  year,  2713 
cbicltens  raised.  Net  product:  204,093  eggs  above  those  used  for  incubation,  1080  fowls 
and  1404  cockerels  and  pullets  sold  for  meat,  4395  pounds.  Records  kept  by  Warren. 

® Hogs  assumed  to  have  eaten  the  same  feed  as  1 ben  and  to  have  made  a gain  of  1 
pound  for  5 pounds  of  grain. 

* Eccles,  C.  II.,  and  Warren,  G.  F.,  1916,  Daii-y  Farming,  p.  8. 

may  increase  or  decrease,  depending  upon  whether  they  are 
raised  entirely  on  grain  or  partly  on  refuse  and  waste  around  the 
farm.  However,  when  we  study  the  relative  efficiency  of  stock 
and  fowls  in  converting  grain  and  hay  into  meat  and  eggs,  it  is 


8o 


Bulletin  329 


clear  why  the  proportion  of  these  classes  of  livestock  shift  as 
the  population  of  a country  increases.  The  hog  and  hen,  when 
fed  on  grain,  compete  with  the  human  race  for  food  more  so  than 
the  dairy  cow  and  steer,  for  the  latter  use  a large  proportion  of 
roughage  not  fit  for  human  consumption.  This  makes  a wider 
discrepancy  than  the  figures  show. 

Major  Factors  Essential  for  Success  in  Poultry  Raising 

A few  pertinent  factors  were  found  to  be  very  important  in  all 
the  successful  poultry  farms.  These  factors  in  the  order  of  their 
importance  were  as  follows  ; 

1.  Size  of  Flock. 

2.  Egg  Production  per  Hen. 

3.  Experience  of  Operator. 

4.  Proportion  of  Pullets  to  Yearlings. 

For  these  farms  the  egg  production  per  hen  was  less  import- 
ant than  size  and  experience.  All  are  necessary  for  success,  but 
some  more  so  than  others.  By  dividing  the  farms  into  three 
classes,  one  class  having  over  720  hens  and  over  109  eggs  per 
hen,  one  class  having  either  of  these  factors  (over  109  eggs  per 
hen,  or  720  hens  per  farm),  and  one  class  having  neither  of 
these  qualifications,  we  can  note  the  effect  on  profits*. 

Tivo  Essentials  for  Success  in  Commercial  Poultry  Raising 

The  two  most  essential  factors  in  making  the  poultry  business 
a success  proved  to  be  the  egg  production  per  hen  and  the  size  of 
the  flock.  Many  other  factors  are  important,  but  usually  when 
these  were  correct  the  others  were  necessarily  so,  otherwise  these 
could  not  have  been  correct. 


Table  37 

Relation  of  Tzvo  Major  Factors — Si:^e  of  Flock  and  Egg  Production  per 
Hen — to  Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  Nezir  Jersey 


Two  Factors — Size  and  Production — 

As  Good  As  or  Itetter  Than 
the  Average 

1 

1 No.  of 

1 Farms 

1 

1 

1 Average 

1 Labor 

1 Income 

1 

Highest 
Labor  | 

Income  | 
1 

Lowest 

Labor 

Income 



1 29 

1 

1 $2002 

1 

$3413 

$354 

Either,  

1 

1 72 

1 659 

I 

1 2216  1 

-617 

Neither,  

1 

1 

1 49 

1 

1 106  1 
1 1 

1 1144  1 

1 

-1013 

Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  81 

Poultrymen  on  whose  farms  these  two  factors  were  as  good 
as  or  better  than  the  average  made  a labor  income  averaging 
$2002  (table  37).  Where  neither  was  as  good  as  or  better  than 
the  average,  the  average  labor  income  was  $106.  The  import- 
ance of  these  two  points  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized. 

Poultry  Raising  Compared  with  Other  Types  of  Farming 
AND  Their  Possibilities 

For  the  year  1916  poultry  farming  proved  profitable  on  the 
commercial  poultry  farms  of  New  Jersey.  These  farms  were 
only  moderate  in  size,  they  were  not  breeding  farms  and  repre- 

Tabi^e  38 

Distribution  or  Range  of  Labor  Income  on  Poultry,  Dairy,  General  and 
Potato  Farms  in  New  Jersey 

NUMBER  OF  FARMS  HAVING  GIVEN  LABOR  INCOME 


! 

TYPE  OF  FARMING 

No.  of  Farms  j 

Less  than  $1 

,$1  to  $400 

$401  to  $700 

$701  to  $1000 

$1001  to  $1500 

$1501  to  $2000 

$2001  to  $2500 

$2501  and  over 

Poultry,  

150 

27 

1 

1 40 

1 1 
21  1 

20 

20 

1 

4 

7 

11 

Dairy  ^ Owners 

300 

83 

82 

41 

1 

1 

39 

25 

16 

8 

6 

1 Tenants,  

i 160 

19 

52 

43 

1 

18 

15 

5 

6 

2 

General ) Owners,  

1 192 

66 

41 

20  1 

14 

25 

13 

5 

8 

3 Tenants 

1 68 

1 9 

21 

11 

1 

1 

10 

1 10 

1 

4 

1 

2 

Potato  \ Owners 

194 

39 

33 

26 

1 

1 

21 

1 32 

13 

9 

21 

3 Tenants 

149 

12 

39 

1 

33 

1 

1 

I 

21 

21 

11 

10 

2 

♦Truck,  

j 

300 

1 

97 

1 

1 H 

1 

1 47 

1 

1 

32 

20 

14 

1 

7 

12 

PER  CENT  OF  FARMS  HAVING  GIVEN  LABOR  INCOME 


Poultry, 

1 

18 

1 

27  1 
1 

1 

14  1 

13 

13 

3 

5 

7 

Dairy  ) 

Owners 

28  ■ 

27  1 

14  1 

13 

8 

5 

3 

2 

s 

Tenants | 

12 

33  1 

27  1 

1 

11 

9 1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

1 

General  7 

Owners,  

34 

1 21 

10  1 

7 

13 

7 

1 3 

4 

s 

Tenants 

13  1 

f 31 

1 

16  1 

15 

15 

1 ® 

2 

3 

Potato  7 

Owners,  

20 

1 

1 u 

13  1 

11 

16 

7 

1 5 

11 

! 

Tenants 

7 

28 

22  1 

14 

14 

7 

1 7 

1 

♦Truck, 

32 

1 

1 24 

1 

1 

1 16  1 

1 1 

10 

7 

0 

1 ^ 

4 

• Owners  and  Tenants. 


Bulletin  329 


B2 

sent  a conservative  poultry  industry.  It  may  be  interesting  to 
compare  the  range  of  profits  of  poultry  farming,  such  as  these 
commercial  egg  farms  represent,  with  that  of  other  tyi>es  of 
farming  in  the  state  (table  38). 

While  there  is  a smaller  proportion  of  poultry  farms  on  which 
a large  labor  income  is  made  than  the  potato  farms,  there  is 
also  a smaller  proportion  on  which  the  operators  are  losing 
money.  Compared  with  the  other  types  of  farming,  poultry 
excelled  in  1916.  At  present,  with  the  change  of  grain  and  egg 
prices,  as  well  as  other  of  farm  products,  this  relation  would 
probably  be  different.  However,  the  poultryman  who  has  kept 
his  two  major  factors,  viz.,  size  of  flock  and  production,  above 
the  average,  has  not  suffered  much. 

SUMMARY 

1.  New  Jersey  has  some  marked  advantages  pertaining  to  the  poultry 
industry,  especially  those  of  markets,  climate,  soils  and  an  established  business 
of  much  reputation. 

2.  The  poultry  areas  of  New  Jerse}^  are  devoted  almost  exclusively  to 
poultry  raising,  without  any  other  line  of  agriculture  important  in  the  areas. 

3.  Four  poultry  associations,  branches  of  the  state  association,  flourish  in 
these  poultry  areas. 

4.  The  flook  practice  of  these  commercial  poultry  farms  is  quite  uniform. 

5.  The  floor  space  in  the  laying  houses  was  3.9  square  feet  per  mature  bird. 

6.  Yearlings  are  largely  kept  every  winter  as  breeders  for  the  production 
of  hatching  eggs. 

7.  Eggs  are  carefully  sorted,  and  those  of  medium  size  and  uniform  shape 
are  used  for  hatching. 

8.  Most  of  the  hatching  is  done  by  incubators  having  a capacity  of  360  to 
400  eggs. 

9.  Culling  of  the  chickens  begins  immediately  after  incubation,  and  before 
they  are  placed  in  the  brooder. 

10.  Small  chicks  are  fed  four  times  a day  for  the  first  week,  three  times 
for  the  next  two  weeks,  and  twice  a day  thereafter. 

11.  The  most  common  type  of  brooder  house  is  one  14  to  20  feet  in  width, 
and  long  enough  to  care  foT  the  desired  number  of  chicks. 

12.  Colony  brooder  houses  are  largely  used  on  the  newer  poultry  plants. 

13.  Few  hens  are  kept  after  they  are  two  years  old. 

14.  Most  young  cokerels  are  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  flock  as  soon  as 
distinguishable,  which  is  four  to  five  weeks  after  hatching. 

15.  The  number  of  pullets  and  old  hens  in  these  flocks  on  November  i,  is 
considered  as  the  size  of  the  flock  for  the  year. 

16.  The  majority  of  the  poultrymen  buy  their  grains  separately  and  mix 
them.  The  ration  used  is  largely  that  recommended  by  the  New  Jersey 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


Profits  on  150  Poultry  Farms  in  New  Jersey  83 

17.  The  ranges  for  the  poultry  O'cciipy  3.2  acres  per  farm,  or  over  27  per 
cent  of  the  total  farm  area. 

18.  White  Leghorn  fowls  comprise  94.3  per  cent  of  the  total  number  on 
these  farms. 

19.  These  poultry  farms  received  from  products  other  than  poultry  an 
average  of  $62  per  farm,  largely  from  fruit. 

20.  The  farms  were  all  O'ccupied  by  owners. 

21.  The  average  labor  income  for  the  150  farms  was  $730,  almost  $1.00 
per  hen. 

22.  The  average  capital  per  farm  was  $7243. 

23.  The  largest  capitalized  farms  gave  the  largest  profit. 

24.  The  average  per  cent  returned  on  investment  was  15. i per  cent. 

25.  The  average  size  of  these  flocks  was  737  fowls,  of  which  720  were  hens 
and  17  cockerels. 

26.  The  largest  flocks  gave  the  largest  profits  per  farm. 

27.  The  largest  flocks  were  the  most  economical  to-  operate. 

28.  The  average  building  investment  was  $1.54  per  bird. 

29.  The  amount  of  receipts  above  expenses,  not  including  the  operator’s 
labor,  was  $1.48  per  bird. 

30.  The  average  egg  production  per  hen  was  109  eggs  for  the  year. 

31.  The  average  current  expense  per  hen  was  $2.34. 

32.  The  average  receipts  per  bird  were  $3.82. 

33.  An  average  of  1.7  months’  labor  was  required  to  care  for  100  mature 
birds  and  chickens  raised  per  100  mature  birds  per  year. 

34.  The  flock  with  the  highest  production  showed  the  greatest  profit  for 
the  year. 

35.  Eleven  per  cent  of  the  flocks  gave  a production  of  45  per  cent  above  the 
average  for  the  150  farms. 

36.  Experience  was  quite  necessary  to  success  on  these  poultry  farms. 

37.  The  poultrymen  on  these  farms  were  engaged  in  many  different  lines 
of  work  prior  to  entering  the  business. 

38.  The  proper  proportion  of  pullets  to  yearlings  was  50  to  70  per  cent  of 
the  number  of  The  flock. 

39.  The  size  of  the  area  per  flock  did  not  appear  to  affect  the  egg  produc- 
tion, or  the  number  of  deaths  in  the  flock. 

40.  The  average  depreciation  of  pullets  was  29  per  cent  and  of  yearlings  50 
per  cent,  while  the  average  depreciation  of  a pullet  until  she  was  sold  as  a 
two-year  old  was  64  per  cent. 

41.  The  average  cost  of  producing  eggs  in  1916  was  29.3  cents  per  dozen. 

42.  The  average  amount  of  feed  required  for  the  laying  flock  and  3^oung 
stock  was  82.97  pounds  per  hen. 

43.  The  average  amount  of  labor  for  the  laying  flock  and  young  stock  was 
only  1.77  months  per  100  birds. 

44.  The  average  profit  per  hen  on  100  farms  was  41  cents. 

45.  The  major  factors  essential  for  success  on  these  poultr}'  farms  were: 
(i)  size  O'f  flock,  (2)  egg  production  per  hen,  (3)  experience  of  operator, 
and  (4)  proportion  of  pullets  to  yearlings. 

46.  The  two  most  essential  factors  were  size  of  flock  and  production  per 
hen. 


84 


Bulletin  329 


47.  Poultrymen  having  flocks  whose  production  and  size  were  above  the 
average  made  an  average  labor  income  of  $2002,  and  those  with  flocks  having 
only  size  or  production  as  good  as  or  better  than  the  average  received  only 
$659,  while  those  in  whose  flocks  neither  size  nor  production  was  as  good  as 
or  better  than  the  average  made  an  average  labor  income  of  only  $106. 


Acknowledgment 

The  authors  take  pleasure  in  acknowledging  the  courtesy  of 
Dr.  J.  G.  Lipman,  dean  and  director,  for  his  support  in  the  work, 
and  express  their  appreciation  to  the  poultrymen  who  gave  these 
data  so  that  the  work  was  made  possible. 

Mr.  A.  G.  Waller  collected  the  data  and  assisted  in  tabulating 
a portion  of  the  survey.  He  also  wrote  the  portions  of  the  manu- 
script devoted  to  the  Description  of  the  Areas,  Poultry  Associa- 
tions, Flock  Practice,  and  the  Laying  Flock.  Prof.  H.  R.  Lewis 
gave  his  counsel,  and  read  and  criticised  the  manuscript  after  it 
was  prepared  by  the  senior  author,  who  directed  the  work,  pre- 
pared and  studied  the  data  and  wrote  the  manuscript  except  such 
portions  as  were  written  by  Mr.  Waller. 


Plate  1. 


Fig.  1,  Modern  poultry  plant  in  the  Vineland  area,  showing  buildings. 


Fig.  2.  Modern  colony  houses  with  the  ranges  in  the  Vineland  area. 


Plate  2. 


Fig.  1.  Typical  brooding  scene  in  Vineland  area,  showing  coal  stove  Ijrooders 
which  are  used  almost  nniversally. 


Fig.  2.  Faying  houses  of  one  O'f  the  pioneer  i)oultrynien  in  the  Vineland  area. 


Plate  3. 


Fig.  1.  Common  arrangement  of  a long  laying  house  located  in  the  center  of 

a peach  orchard. 


Fig.  2.  Laying  houses  in  the  Vineland  area,  showing  the  range. 


Plate  4. 


Fig.  1,  Range  houses  in  the  Vineland  area. 


Fig.  2.  A method  commonly  used  in  marketing  in  the  Vineland  area.  The 
eggs  are  taken  to  the  tro'lley  express  in  wheelbarrows. 


Xjum 


New  Jersey 


Agricultural  experiment  Stations 


BULLETIN  330 


Main  Building  at  the  New  Jersey  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station 


REPORT  OF  THE  DIRECTOR 
FOR  1918 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS* 

NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J. 


STATION  ESTABLISHED  1880 

BOARD  OF  MANAGERS 

His  Excellency  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.  D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.  D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.  D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County 

Atlantic 

Bergen 

Burlington 

Camden 

Cape  May 

Cumberland 

Essex 

Gloucester 

Hudson 

Hunterdon 

Mercer 


Name 

William  A.  Blair 
Arthur  Lozier 
R.  R.  Lippincott 
Ephraim  1.  Gill 
Charles  V^anaman 
Charles  F.  Seabrook 
Zenos  G.  Crane 
Wilbur  Beckett 
Diedrich  Bahrenburg 
Egbert  T.  Bush 
losiah  T.  Allinson 


Address 

Elwood 

Ridgewood 

Vincentown 

Haddonfield 

Dias  Creek 

Bridgeton 

Caldwell 

Swedesboro 

Union  Hill 

Stockton 

Yardville 


Cou  nty 

Name 

Address 

Middlesex 

James  Neilson 

New  Bruns’k 

Monmouth 

William  H.  Rcid 

Tennent 

Morris 

John  C.  Welsh 

Ger’n  Valley 

Ocean 

Joseph  Sapp 

Tuckerton 

Passaic 

Isaac  A.  Serven 

Clifton 

Salem 

Charles  R.  Hires 

Salem 

Somerset 

Joseph  Larocque 

Bernardsville 

Sussex 

Robert  V.  Armstrong  Augusta 

Union 

John  Z.  Hatfield 

Scotch  Plains 

Warren 

James  I.  Cooke 

Delaware 

STAFF 

Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.  D Director. 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.  Sc Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.  Sc Editor.* 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian 


Frank  App,  B.  Sc Agronomist. 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.  Sc.  Associate  Agronomist 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.  Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.  Sc Chemist. 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.  Sc.  ..  .Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

Harry  C.  McLean,  Ph.  D.  . Chemist,  Soil  Res’h. 
William  M.  Regan,  A.  M.  .Dairy  Husbandman. 
Forest  Button,  B.  Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 
John  Hill,  B.  Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.  D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.  Sc.,  Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.  Sc. ..Asst.  Entomologist 


Charles  H.  Connors,  B.  Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.  Sc., 

Acting  Horticulturist. 
William  Schieferstein  ....  Orchard  Foreman 
Lyman  G.  Sciiermerhorn,  B.  Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 
Vincent  J.  Breazeale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing 

11.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.  Agr.,  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  B.  Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

Elmer  H.  Wene Poultry  Foreman. 

John  P.  Helyar,  M.  Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  Ph.  B....Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 

BOARD  OF  CONTROL 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.  D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan 

J.  AMORY  HASKELL Red  Bank 

STAFF 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.  D Director. 

ilENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.  B Chief  Clerk. 


John  W.  Shive,  Ph.  D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.  Sc.  ..  .Assistant  in  Botany. 
Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.  M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.  D Entomologist. 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.  D..Asst.  Entomologist. 
Gertrude  E.  Macpherson,  A.  B., 

Research  Assistant  in  Plant  Pathology. 


‘Staff  list  revised  to  October 


[918. 


Augusta  E.  Meske.  .. Stenographer  and  Clerk. 
Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.  D.. Plant  Pathologist. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.  D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.  M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.  D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 
Cyrus  Witmer.  ...  Field  and  Laboratory  Asst, 


(3) 


NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 
AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Alva  Agee,  M.  Sc.,  Director. 

Mrs.  Frank  App,  Assistant  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Leader. 

Victor  G.  Aubry,  B.  Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  W.  Bartlett,  B.  Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

Maurice  A.  Blake,  B.  Sc.,  Acting  State 
Superintendent  and  State  Leader  of  Farm 
Demonstration. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.  Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.  Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fer- 
tility and  Agronomy. 


Elsie  Ditmar,  Assistant  State  Club  Leader. 

Marjory  Eells,  D.  S.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

Edna  Gulick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

Ethel  Jones,  M.  A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.  B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

Van  E.  Leavitt,  Specialist,  Fruit  Growing. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.  Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.  Sc.,  Editor. 


H.  E.  Baldinger,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Sussex  County. 

William  P.  Brodie,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent,  Salem  County. 

Frank  A.  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator  tor 
Gloucester  County. 

Laura  V.  Clark,  A.  B.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Newark. 

Bertha  Cold,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Jersey  City. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.  S.  A.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demon- 
stration Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  W.  Crittenden,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Ellwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  for 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  A.  Hoffman,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Morris  County. 

j William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Mercer  County. 


Philip  F.  Keil,  Demonstration  Agent  for  Bur- 
lington County. 

May  D.  Kemp,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.  Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

L.  F.  Merrill,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator  for  Ber- 
gen County. 

Adelia  F.  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cumberland  County. 

Lena  R.  Pierce,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

Regine  Porges,  .B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic. 

Caroline  R.  Simons,  Home  Demonstration 
Ap'ent  for  Camden. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator 
for  Cape  May  County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Jessie  D.  Ross,  B.  Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Elizabeth. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  Wettyen,  B.  Sc.,  Demonstrator 
for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.  Agr.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 


CONTENTS 


Page 

The  Station’s  Activities 6 

Chemistry 9 

Inspection  of  Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs 9 

Inspection  of  Commercial  Fertilizers 10 

Registration 10 

Inspection  of  Agricultural  Lime 10 

Inspection  of  Insecticides 10 

Horticulture 10 

Animal  Husbandry 11 

Poultry  Husbandry 11 

Dairy  Husbandry 18 

Experimental 13 

Extension  Work 18 

Advanced  Registry  Work 13 

Glassware  and  Testers’  License  Law 18 

The  Dairy  Herd  and  Equipment 13 

Seed  Control 13 

Agronomy 14 

Agricultural  Extension 15 

Soil  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 15 

Field  Plots 15 

Cylinder  Experiments 16 

Potash  Availability 16 

Soil  Fungi  and  Bacteria 16 

Potato  Fertilizer  Experiment 16 

Botany 16 

Entomology 17 

Plant  Pathology 19 

Publications 20 

Bulletins 20 

(brculars 20 

Reports 21 

Ilints'to  Poultrymen 21 

Publications  of  the  Division  of  Extension 21 

Technical  Papers 22 

Popular  Papers 23 

Staff  Changes 24 

Appointments 24 

Resignations , 25 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS 
BULLETIN  330 

AUGUST  15,  1918 


REPORT  OF  THE  DIRECTOR  FOR  1918 
Jacob  G.  Lipman 


Competition  of  war  industries  has  brought  about  marked 
changes  in  the  farm  practice  of  the  past  season.  It  happens  that 
New  Jersey  has  a large  number  of  these  war  industries  within  its 
borders  and  many  more  in  adjacent  territory.  Naturally,  the  scale 
of  wages  in  vogue  at  plants  manufacturing  war  supplies  and  equip- 
ment is  very  much  beyond  that  formerly,  and  even  at  present,  pre- 
vailing on  the  farms  of  the  state.  Experienced  farm  help  has  been 
attracted  by  the  high  wages  and  has  been  lost  to  the  farms. 

Not  only  is  there  a shortage  of  experienced  farm  labor,  but 
much  of  the  labor  remaining  on  farms  is,  on  the  average,  less  com- 
petent than  formerly.  An  effort  has  been  made  to  replace  the  men 
who  have  left  the  farm  by  boys  of  school  age  and  by  women.  This 
replacement  is  not  in  all  cases  satisfactory.  Fortunately,  coopera- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  of  New  Jersey,  of  the 
Federal  Department  of  Labor  and  of  the  State  Agricultural  Col- 
lege has  served  to  distribute  as  well  as  is  practicable  the  scant  sup- 
ply of  farm  labor. 

Much  uncertainty  has  also  prevailed  in  the  supply  and  distribu- 
tion of  raw  materials  needed  in  crop  production.  The  delivery  of 
fertilizers  was  very  slow  in  the  spring  and,  in  a number  of  instances, 
farmers  were  compelled  to  plant  their  crops  without  fertilizer  which 
had  failed  to  arrive  in  time.  Similarly,  the  deliveries  of  farm  im- 
plements, of  seed  and  of  insecticides  has  been  uncertain.  The  price 
of  these  commodities  also  has  gone  up.  Feed  for  domestic  animals 
has  increased  in  price  to  such  an  extent  as  to  hamper  seriously  the 
feeding  of  poultry,  swine  and  dairy  animals.  The  farmers  in  our 
state  are  realizing  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  place  orders  for  raw 
materials  used  in  crop  production  at  a much  earlier  date  than  here- 
tofore. 

The  disturbed  condition  of  the  farm  labor  market  and  the  en- 
hanced prices  of  farm  supplies  have  brought  about,  in  certain  sec- 
tions, a more  or  less  far-renching  readjustment  in  the  crop  practice. 
In  some  of  the  South  Jersey  counties  the  acreage  of  potatoes  was 


6 


Bulletin  330 


materially  reduced  and  the  acreage  of  tomatoes  increased  to  a corre- 
sponding extent  On  the  whole,  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the 
acreage  of  corn  and  of  small  grains,  and  a very  marked  decrease 
in  the  acreage  of  vegetable  crops  grown  under  normal  conditions. 
There  has  been  a marked  decrease  in  the  number  of  dairy  cattle  in 
the  southern  part  of  the  state.  There  has  also  been  a very  marked 
shrinkage  in  the  amount  of  poultry  in  the  state.  It  may  be  noted 
here  that  home  gardens  still  continue  to  be  a factor  in  food  pro- 
duction. The  total  acreage  devoted  to  home  gardens  in  1918  is 
probably  less  than  that  in  1917.  On  the  other  hand,  the  gardens 
are  evidently  receiving  much  better  care  and  the  volume  of  food 
produced  from  these  gardens  should  be  fully  as  great  in  1918  as  it 
was  in  1917. 

It  is  already  apparent  that  the  unusual  industrial  conditions 
now  prevailing  will  react  on  agricultural  production  in  the  state. 
It  is  safe  to  assume  that  there  will  be  an  extraordinary  demand  after 
the  war  for  desirable  farm  lands  and  that  many  new  settlers  will 
come  to  New  Jersey  from  other  states.  For  this  reason,  it  would 
be  wise  to  anticipate  the  utilization  of  farm  lands  now  partly  or 
entirely  neglected  and  the  putting  under  cultivation  of  a great  deal 
of  land  not  yet  improved  for  farm  purposes.  Some  stress  will  have 
to  be  laid  on  the  desirability  of  organizing  as  fast  as  may  be  prac- 
ticable agricultural  courses  in  our  secondary  schools,  for  we  shall 
depend  on  these  courses  for  the  training  of  a new  generation  of 
farmers.  It  may  be  suggested,  also,  that  a greater  degree  of  co- 
operation will  be  developed  among  farmers  of  New  Jersey,  both  in 
respect  to  production  and  marketing. 

The  Station's  Activities 

The  progress  of  the  war  has  brought  about  some  readjustments 
in  the  organization  and  conduct  of  the  work  of  the  Experiment 
Station.  A very  considerable  number  of  the  stall  terminated  their 
connection  with  the  institution  to  enter  the  military  service  of  the 
country.  A list  of  former  employees  of  the  station  now  in  the 
service  is  given  elsewhere  in  this  report.  In  so  far  as  it  was  pos- 
sible, vacancies  created  by  enlistments  or  draft  were  filled  by  men 
above  draft  age  or  those  placed  in  the  deferred  classes  on  account 
of  dependents.  Nevertheless,  the  increasing  scale  of  salaries,  a 
sequel  to  the  high  cost  of  food  and  of  other  commodities,  has  tended 
to  interfere  with  the  progress  of  the  Station’s  work. 

Among  the  accessions  to  the  land,  Iniildings  and  equipment 
of  the  station,  there  are  several  which  are  deserving  of  special  men- 
tion. Mr.  James  Neilson — a trustee  and  tried  friend  of  the  College 
— has  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  College  and  Experiment  Station 
his  farm-land  and  outbuildings.  There  is  a total  area  of  about 
260  acres  owned  by  Mr.  Neilson.  Of  this  acreage  150  acres  are 
tillable  and  in  a good  state  of  cultivation.  Mr.  Neilson,  with  his 
usual  generosity,  is  allowing  the  College  the  use  of  his  land  and 
outbuildings  without  charge.  The  increased  acreage  which  was 
made  available  by  Mr.  Neilson ’s  action  made  necessary  the  engaging 


Repokt  of  the  Dikectok  for  1918  7 

of  additional  men  for  farm  work  and  the  purchase  of  additional 
ecpiipment.  An  effort  was  made  to  solve  the  labor  problem  by 
putting  in  use  three  tractors  owned  by  the  Station.  The  excessive 
rainfall  during  the  early  part  of  the  season  interfered  more  or  less 
with  the  fullest  use  of  these  tractors.  Nevertheless,  results  thus  far 
obtained  indicate  that  the  farm  tractor  may  be  made  a valuable 
ally  in  general  farming.  In  view  of  the  high  cost  of  feeds,  as  well 
as  of  labor  involved  in  the  care  of  livestock,  motor-driven  farm 
machinery  should  prove  an  acceptable  substitute  for  draft  animals. 

The  completion  of  the  Dairy  Barn,  so  badly  needed,  has  been 
delayed  on  account  of  the  inability  of  the  contractor  to  secure 
l)uilding  materials.  It  is  hoped  that  it  will  be  completed  before 
cold  weather  conies  on.  The  completion  of  the  barn  will  permit 
of  a more  economical  use  of  the  labor  employed  in  our  dairy  de- 
partment. 'It  is  expected  that  the  new  barn  will  be  conducted  as  a 
commercial  unit  of  about  45  milking  cows,  and  that  the  old  barn 
will  be  used  for  heifers  and  calves.  A number  of  bull  pens  have 
been  completed  and  enclosures  provided  for  the  young  stock.  All 
told,  there  has  been  very  marked  progress  in  the  dairy  department. 
The  number  of  pure-bred  and  registered  animals  is  steadily  in- 
creasing. and  the  time  is  near  when  all  of  the  livestock  in  the  dairy 
department  will  be  pure-bred.  Three  of  the  prominent  breeds,  viz. : 
Holstein,  Jersey  and  Ayrshire,  are  well  represented.  The  number 
of  Guernseys  in  the  herd  is  still  very  limited,  but  a good  beginning 
with  this  breed  has  already  been  made.  It  may  be  noted  here  that 
several  Milking  Shorthorns  were  purchased  last  fall  and  that  a few 
of  these  animals  will  be  kept  for  educational  purposes.  It  may  also 
be  noted  that  the  Hock  of  sheep  acquired  by  the  Station  will  be 
enlarged  as  conditions  may  permit. 

Certain  alterations  are  being  made  in  the  Short  Course  Build- 
ing to  provide  for  the  establishment  of  a Home  Economics  Labora- 
tory in  which  experimental  and  demonstration  work  in  home  eco- 
nomics may  be  carried  on.  This  laboratory  should  be  a valuable 
aid  to  the  home  economics  specialists  in  the  state,  for  it  will  give 
them  an  opportunity  to  test  out  recipes  and  methods  before  recom- 
mending them  for  general  adoption  in  the  state. 

While  every  effort  has  been  made  to  economize  in  the  use  of 
labor  on  the  College  Farm  Grounds,  some  progress  has  been  made 
nevertheless  as  incidental  to  the  work  of  crop  production.  The  lines 
of  the  first  quadrangle  of  the  College  Farm  have  been  marked  by 
the  planting  of  shade  trees  and  by  a limited  degree  of  grading  and 
filling.  The  approach  to  the  College  Farm  is  to  be  made  more 
attractive  by  the  paving  of  Nichol  Avenue,  now  in  progress.  This 
work  is  being  done  by  the  Department  of  Highway  Engineering  of 
the  state.  It  is  the  pleasant  duty  of  the  director  of  the  Station  to 
express  his  feeling  of  appreciation  to  the  State  Highway  Depart- 
ment for  the  helpful  cooperation  extended  to  both  the  College  and 
Station. 

The  constant  demand  for  additional  space  on  the  part  of  the 
extension  department  of  the  College  and  Station  has  made  it  neees- 


8 


Bulletin  330 


sary  to  utilize  a large  part  of  the  Farm  House  for  this  purpose. 
The  offices  of  the  state  leader  of  boys’  and  girls’  clubs,  as  well  as 
the  office  of  the  home  economics  specialists,  are  now  located  in  the 
Farm  House.  Notwithstanding  the  use  of  most  of  the  Farm 
House  for  this  purpose,  the  Agricultural  Building  is  very  much 
crowded  and  some  of  the  departments  of  the  Station  are  suffering 
from  lack  of  adequate  office  facilities.  It  is  hoped  that  the  re- 
quest of  the  College  and  Station  for  a Horticultural  Building,  re- 
peatedly presented  to  the  Appropriations  Committee,  will  be  met 
in  the  near  future.  There  is  also  an  urgent  need  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a machinery  building,  in  which  farm  tractors  and  other 
farm  niachinery  may  be  stored  and  in  which  instruction  in  farm 
mechanics  may  be  carried  on.  It  is  realized  that  the  growing  in- 
terest in  the  use  of  motor-driven  niachinery  will  compel  the  agri- 
cultural institutions  of  the  state  to  accumulate  first-hand  informa 
tion  on  the  construction  and  costs  of  operation  of  such  implements 
and  machinery.  It  is  hoped  that  funds  may  be  available  for  the 
construction  of  a Machinery  Building. 

Some  of  the  research  work  of  the  Station  has  been  curtailed 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  fuel.  Two  of  the  station  green  houses 
were  not  operated  last  winter  in  order  that  the  consumption  of  coal 
might  be  reduced  to  a minimum.  It  is  expected  that  through  the 
coming  fall  and  winter  economy  in  the  use  of  coal  for  greenhouse 
purposes  will  be  even  more  rigid.  In  so  far  as  possible,  wood  fuel 
will  be  used  at  the  College  Farm  as  a substitute  for  coal.  In 
spite  of  the  most  drastic  economy,  however,  very  considerable 
quantities  of  coal  will  be  needed  for  heating  the  offices  and  labora- 
tories. We  hope  that  this  coal  will  be  made  available. 

The  rapidly  mounting  cost  of  supplies  of  all  sorts  is  imposing 
on  the  station  administration  the  duty  of  scrutinizing  every  item 
of  expense  in  order  that  the  station  budget  may  be  kept  within 
the  limits  of  the  appropriation.  The  cost  of  feeds  and  of  labor  is 
an  important  item  in  the  station  budget  and  is,  for  this  reason, 
receiving  special  consideration. 

An  effort  is  being  made  to  increase  the  production  of  home- 
grown feeds.  The  production  of  alfalfa  and  of  other  forage  crops 
is  considerably  beyond  the  actual  needs  of  the  livestock,  and  some 
hay  will  probably  be  sold.  If  the  growing  conditions  remain  at 
all  normal,  the  production  of  corn  should  not  only  be  sufficient 
for  filling  the  silos,  but  should  also  furnish  one-third  of  the  corn 
needed  by  the  dairy,  poultry  and  animal  husbandry  departments 
of  the  station.  A very  considerable  quantity  of  oats  and  peas 
will  also  be  made  available  for  furnishing  part  of  the  concentrates 
needed  in  the  dairy  and  animal  husbandry  departments. 

The  Experiment  Station  has  enjoyed  within  the  period  covered 
by  this  report  the  cooperation  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture,  and  of  the  State  Departments  of  Conservation  and 
Development,  Education,  Labor  and  Agriculture.  The  station  has 
also  enjoyed  the  cooperation  of  the  State  Agricultural  College  and 
State  University  of  New  Jersey.  Experimental  work  carried  on 
in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 


Report  of  the  Director  for  1918 


0 


has  included  studies  of  plant  diseases  affecting  tomatoes,  the  feed- 
ing of  garbage  to  swine  and  the  fertilizer  requirements  of  soils 
especially  adapted  to  the  growing  of  cranberries  and  blueberries. 
The  Department  of  Conservation  and  Development  has  cooperated, 
as  formerly,  with  the  Experiment  Station  in  the  conduct  of  soil 
surveys  of  the  state.  The  State  Department  of  Agriculture  has 
continued  its  cooperation  in  certain  control  work  on  insects  and 
plant  diseases,  the  organization  of  farmers’  institutes  and  the 
carrying  on  of  educational  work  relating  to  crops  and  animals. 

The  enactment  of  the  so-called  Smith-Hughes  Bill  has  pro- 
vided for  cooperative  work  between  the  State  Department  of  Edu- 
cation and  the  State  University  of  New  Jersey.  Indirectly,  this 
cooperative  work  affects  the  activities  of  the  Experiment  Station. 
The  organization  of  agricultural  courses  in  the  secondary  schools 
of  the  state,  as  a result  of  this  cooperation,  will  bring  to  the  Ex- 
periment Station  a certain  degree  of  responsibility  in  the  supply- 
ing of  technical  information  on  crop  production.  The  Experiment 
Station  has  enjoyed  in  many  ways  cooperation  with  the  State  Uni- 
versity in  the  conduct  of  demonstration  and  experimental  work. 
This  cooperation  allows  the  most  economical  use  of  buildings  and 
equipment,  and  accrues  to  the  advantage  of  both  institutions. 

A summary  of  the  activities  of  the  several  departments  of  the 
station,  as  submitted  by  these  departments,  is  herewith  given. 

Chemistry 

The  previous  annual  reports  contain  the  results  of  the  inspec- 
tions of  feeding  stuffs,  fertilizers,  agricultural  limes  and  insecti- 
cides, but  since  this  report  is  for  only  eight  months,  it  is  impossible 
to  report  in  detail  the  results  of  all  of  the  inspections.  The  in- 
spection of  commercial  feeding  stuffs  is  the  only  inspection  that 
has  been  completed  since  the  last  report,  and  the  results  obtained 
are  noted.  Brief  statements  also  are  made  in  regard  to  the  other 
inspections  in  order  that  a record  may  be  made  of  the  conditions 
at  the  time  of  rendering  the  report. 

Inspection  of  Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs 

The  manuscript  for  the  bulletin  containing  the  results  of  the 
inspection  has  been  prepared  and  is  in  the  hands  of  the  printer. 

During  the  year,  469  manufacturers  and  jobbers  registered 
2553  brands  of  feeding  stuffs  which  they  would  offer  for  sale  in 
this  state.  The  inspectors  found  39  brands  that  were  being  sold 
before  registration  was  made.  This  is  an  improvement  over  the 
preceding  year,  the  local  manufacturers  being  largely  responsible 
for  these  brands. 

The  total  number  of  samples  examined  was  977,  and  260 — or 
27.9  per  cent — did  not  substantially  satisfy  the  guarantees  given 
for  the  minimum  content  of  protein  nnd  fat,  and  the  maximum 
content  of  fiber.  The  deficiencies  found  consisted  of  the  following ; 
protein,  87 ; fat,  83 ; and  fiber,  151 ; 207  samples  being  deficient 
in  one  nutrient;  45  deficient  in  two  nutrients  and  8 deficient  in  the 
three  nutrients.  These  figures,  when  compared  with  the  previous 


10 


Bulletin  330 


inspection,  show  that  there  was  an  improvement  in  the  character 
of  the  feeds  examined. 

The  tonnag-e  of  feeding  stuffs  sold  as  shown  in  the  tabulation 
amounts  to  234,040  tons,  which  was  about  1300  tons  less  than  was 
sold  during  the  preceding  year  and  about  6000  tons  more  than  was 
sold  in  1915. 


Inspection  of  Commercial  Fertilizers 

The  collection  of  the  samples  of  fertilizers  representing  the 
spring  shipments  has  been  made,  and  the  chemical  examinations 
are  being  made  by  the  entire  chemical  force,  but  the  work  has  not 
progressed  sufficiently  to  permit  any  statements  as  to  the  character 
and  composition  of  the  materials  sold. 

Registration 

The  fertilizer  registrations  received  between  November  1, 
1917,  and  January  28,  1918,  were  published  in  Bulletin  321. 

Inspection  of  Agricultnral  Lime 

The  inspection  of  agricultural  lime  products  is  being  carried 
along  with  the  fertilizer  work  as  usual. 

Inspection  of  Insecticides 

Samples  of  insecticides  are  being  collected.  The  chemical  ex- 
amination will  be  made  and  the  results  published  as  usual. 

Horticulture 

The  peach  experiments  in  Orchard  No.  1 at  Vineland  have 
been  conducted  for  a period  of  ten  years,  and,  since  it  is  now  very 
difficult  and  almost  impossible  to  secure  some  forms  of  plant-food, 
this  portion  of  the  Avork  has  been  concluded.  The  orchard,  how- 
ever, has  become  the  oldest  one  in  the  district  in  commercial  con- 
dition, and  it  offered  a good  opportunity  to  demonstrate  the  com- 
mercial iiossibilities  of  an  orchard  beyond  its  tenth  year.  Each 
alternate  row  of  trees  was  pruned  back  severely  in  the  last  winter 
in  order  to  develop  a new  top,  and  a vigorous  growth  resulted. 
The  other  rows  Avill  be  headed  back  in  the  same  manner  either  next 
year  or  the  following  year,  so  that  the  entire  orchard  may  be  kept 
vigorous  and  with  low  heads. 

The  extensive  peach  pruning  experiments  at  Vineland  have 
been  continued  and  a full  crop  is  now  on  the  trees.  Some  detailed 
studies  are  being  made  this  year  of  the  rate  of  groAvth  of  the  fruits 
and  twigs  in  each  treatment. 

A record  has  been  kept  for  a period  of  years  of  the  number 
of  borers  removed  from  each  tree  in  the  experiments  at  Vineland, 
and  this  work  has  been  maintained.  The  number  of  trees  infested 
and  the  number  of  borers  found  Avere  greatly  reduced  this  year, 
I)robably  as  the  result  of  the  work  of  parasites. 

A Avhite  seedling  freestone  peach  that  ripens  a few  days  before 
Carman  is  being  propagated  for  distribution. 


Report  of  the  Director  for  1918 


11 


Several  promising  carnation  seedlings  deserve  to  be  propa- 
gated for  distribution  as  soon  as  conditions  permit. 

Animal  Husbandry 

Three  distinct  lines  of  feeding  experiments  received  attention 
in  the  animal  husbandry  department  during  the  period  November 
1,  1917,  to  June  30,  1918. 

One  of  these  feeding  experiments  consisted  of  a comparative 
study  of  self-feeders  versus  hand-feeding  for  market  pigs  that  were 
allowed  access  also  to  forage  crops.  The  second  trial,  a continua- 
tion of  earlier  experimental  work,  began  on  June  .15,  19i7,  with 
20  pigs;  and  the  third  trial  began  on  July  25,  1917,  with  30  pigs. 
All  of  the  animals  were  under  experiment  from  weaning  time  until 
ready  to  go  to  market.  It  is  expected  that  a fourth  test  will  be 
carried  out  in  the  season  of  1918  in  order  to  make  certain  that 
the  results  of  the  last  two  seasons  are  properly  checked. 

Cooperative  experiments  are  being  conducted  on  the  feeding 
of  garbage  to  hogs.  The  State  Hospital,  at  Trenton,  and  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  as  well  as  the  Experi- 
ment Station,  are  participating  in  this  work.  The  experimental 
work  was  begun  on  June  7,  1918,  with  60  pigs.  It  is  proposed  to 
continue  the  experiments  until  the  animals  obtain  a marketable 
weight  of  from  200  to  250  pounds.  The  60  animals  are  divided 
into  six  lots  of  ten  pigs  each.  They  are  to  b.e  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  1.  Cooked  garbage. 

Lot  2.  Raw  garbage. 

Lot  3.  Raw  garbage  finished  on  a grain  ration 

Lot  4.  Raw  garbage  with  1 per  cent  of  grain. 

Lot  5.  Straight  grain  ration. 

Lot  6.  Raw  garbage  with  green  forage. 

Still  another  experiment  deals  with  alfalfa  as  a hay  and  forage 
crop.  The  alfalfa  crop  used  in  the  experiment  was  seeded  on 
August  14,  1917.  The  first  cutting  was  made  on  May  27,  1918, 
and  the  animals  were  turned  into  the  alfalfa  pasture  on  June  10, 
1918.  An  attempt  will  be  made  to  determine  the  value  of  alfalfa 
in  the  economical  production  of  pork. 

Poultry  Husbandry 

The  work  of  the  department  of  poultry  husbandry  has  pro- 
gressed very  satisfactorily  during  the  past  eight  months  in  spite 
of  the  serious  handicaps  occasioned  by  war  conditions.  The  change 
in  the  date  of  issuing  the  annual  report  makes  it  impossible  t(» 
report  fully  on  the  details  and  progress  of  the  various  research 
projects.  These  will  be  fully  reported  upon  in  the  next  annual 
report. 

The  staff  of  the  department  has  been  subjecteil  to  many 
changes,  due  to  demands  for  men  for  service  in  the  army.  This 
has  handicapped  the  work  at  the  Vineland  contest  very  materially. 

The  extreme  shortage  of  staple  feeding  stuffs  and  the  inability 


12 


Bullbtin  330 


to  obtain  them  during  certain  parts  of  last  winter  was  a very 
serious  problem,  making  it  necessary  to  curtail  many  of  the  feeding 
research  projects.  The  experimental  feeding  work  has  been  cen- 
tered more  largely  on  war  emergency  problems  in  an  effort  to 
find  efficient  concentrates  which  would  meet  the  needs  of  poultry 
rations  at  a moderate  cost.  One  very  valuable  factor  learned  dur- 
ing the  last  year’s  work  is  the  possibility  of  greatly  increasing  the 
amount  of  mash  fed  to  laying  hens  and  growing  stock,  and  greatly 
reducing  the  amount  of  grain  fed.  Such  practice  results  in  a 
great  reduction  in  the  cost  of  the  ration  and  more  efficiency  in 
production  and  growth. 

New  Jersey,  among  the  other  eastern  states,  has  been  hard  hit 
in  its  poultry  industry,  because  of  the  great  distance  over  which 
feed  and  fuel  must  be  transported,  as  well  as  the  scarcity  and 
high  prices  of  these  commodities.  In  order  to  help  meet  this 
emergency,  the  poultr;>"  husbandman  of  the  Experiment  Station 
has  personally  devoted  considerable  time  and  energy  to  meet  these 
problems  through  cooperative  and  organization  methods.  The  cor- 
respondence of  the  department  has  increased  during  the  year, 
much  of  wliicli  has  been  of  an  emergency  nature. 

Practically  all  of  the  breeding  work  which  has  been  under 
way  for  the  past  few  years  has  been  maintained,  though  somewhat 
reduced  in  volume.  The  work  at  the  Vineland  contest  has  pro- 
gressed in  an  exceptionally  gratifying  manner.  The  two-year-old 
hens  during  the  current  year  have  succeeded  in  laying  a production 
nearly  ecpial  to  their  pullet  performance.  Excellent  results  have 
been  attained  in  the  hatching  and  rearing  of  the  young  stock  from 
the  contest  birds,  and  a very  promising  year  of  the  contest  is  an- 
ticipated. The  contest  has  brought  out  many  valuable  research 
results,  from  a breeding  as  well  as  from  a feeding  standpoint. 

The  policy  of  the  poultry  department  in  meeting  the  war 
cmiergency  is  two-fold : first,  to  keep  thoroughly  informed  of  ex- 
isting conditions  in  the  state  by  studying  through  every  possible 
means  the  condition  of  every  changing  factor  affecting  the  industry 
and  to  determine  the  reaction  of  such  conditions  upon  production; 
and,  second,  to  attempt  to  stimulate  in  every  possible  way  a greater 
efficiency  in  poultry  production  and  to  strive  in  so  far  as  is  con- 
sistent with  cost  and  revenue  factors,  to  maintain  production 
With  the  aim  of  meeting  this  program,  definite  suggestions  and 
teachings  have  been  promulgated  and  given  wide  publicity  through 
personal  contact  with  organizations,  through  demonstration  pro- 
jects, and  through  individual  visits,  as  well  as  through  the  agri- 
cultural and  poultry  press  and  through  our  regular  Hints  to 
Poultrymen.  ’ ’ 

The  aims  and  purposes  in  administering  the  forces  of  the 
poultrv"  department  are  and  will  be  to  help  win  the  war  by  uniting 
the  poultry  interests  of  the  state ; by  fostering  the  industry  through 
proper  counsel  and  advice,  and  through  the  closest  attention  to 
these  efforts  to  support  the  nation  in  the  production  of  an  ade- 
({uate  supply  of  poultry  and  eggs. 


Report  of  the  Director  for  1918 


13 


Dairy  Husbandry 

The  following  five  principal  lines  of  endeavor  have  been  pur- 
sued by  the  department  of  dairy  husbandry  during  the  eight 
months  ending  June  30,  1918. 

Experimental 

The  experimental  work  has  consisted  principally  of  the  long- 
time experiment  on  the  conformation  of  dairy  heifers  as  indicating 
their  future  production.  This  experiment  has  been  running  for 
two  years.  A new  experiment,  The  Milking  Machine  and  Its  Re- 
lation to  Sanitary  Milk  Production,  has  been  started  during  the 
past  year. 

Extension  Work 

The  dairy  extension  work  has  been  exceptionally  heavy  during 
the  past  year.  Advice  and  assistance  to  the  dairymen  of  the  state 
nave  teen  given  through  cooperative  dairy  projects,  correspon- 
dence. personal  visits  and  institutes. 

One  new  dairy  record  association  has  been  formed,  makinj> 
in  all  nine  active  dairy  record  associations. 

The  formation  of  the  State  Dairymen’s  Association  has  been 
completed. 

Advanced  Registry  Work 

There  has  been  a slight  increase  in  the  number  of  cows  on  ad- 
vanced registry.  From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  breeders,  even 
under  the  adverse  conditions  of  feed  and  labor,  have  confidence  in 
the  future  of  the  dairy  cattle  industry. 

Glassware  and  Testers’  License  Law 

The  supervision  of  the  creameries  and  milk  plants  in  the  state 
with  reference  to  their  testing  of  milk  and  cream  where  milk  and 
cream  are  purchased  on  the  butterfat  basis  has  been  carried  on  in  a 
similar  manner  as  in  the  previous  year.  A total  of  1,985  pieces  of 
glassware  were  tested  with  an  average  proportion  of  inaccuracy  of 
3.8  per  cent.  This  shows  that  the  law  is  having  its  effect  in  bringing 
a better  grade  of  glassware  into  the  state. 

The  Dairy  Herd  and  Equipment 

The  dairy  herd  has  seen  a substantial  increase  to  June  30,  1918, 
totalling  102  animals.  The  total  at  the  end  of  the  last  fiscal  year 
was  74,  showing  an  increase  of  28  animals. 

A new  addition  to  the  barn  has  been  almost  completed.  This 
work  has  been  very  much  hindered  because  of  inability  to  get  ma- 
terials, but  undoubtedly  the  barn  will  be  ready  for  the  stabling 
of  cattle  by  cold  weather. 

Seed  Control 

The  unusual  conditions  of  the  country’s  seed  supply,  the  de- 
mand for  crop  production  and  a growing  appreciation  of  the  im- 
portance of  good  seeds  in  relation  thereto,  have  had  a marked  effect 


14 


Bulletin  330 


on  the  extent  of  service  demanded  from  the  seed  laboratory.  For- 
tunately, conditions  enabled  this  department  to  meet  the  demand 
and  much  has  apparently  been  gained  in  establishing  the  necessity 
of  maintaining  the  seed  laboratory. 

In  particular,  it  was  possible  to  perform  a very  beneficial  serv- 
ice to  the  corn  growers  of  the  state,  who  faced  the  1918  season 
with  a very  uncertain  supply  of  seed.  Testing  many  samples  for 
farmers,  issuing  instructions  for  home  testing  and  emphasizing  the 
need  of  most  careful  discrimination  in  selecting  seed  corn  saved 
many  thousands  of  dollars  to  the  state. 

The  official  inspection  of  dealers’  stock  has  been  seriously  limi- 
ted by  lack  of  funds.  This  is  a most  important  phase  of  the  work 
and,  if  neglected,  the  object  of  the  law  will  be  altogether  nullified. 
Pffir  this  work  there  is  most  urgent  need  of  a man  who  can  be  in  the 
field  all  the  time,  if  necessary,  maintaining  contact  with  dealers 
throughout  the  state  and  sampling  dealers’  stock  freely.  In  this 
way  only  can  the  seed  laboratory  approach  the  desired  condition  of 
assuring  accuracy  of  label  statements  to  purchasers.  The  labora- 
tory is  organized  and  equipped,  and  to  do  its  utmost  there  must  be 
sufficient  appropriation  to  extend  the  work  as  indicated. 

Agronomy 

The  agronomy  department  has  continued  the  work  of  the  pre- 
ceding year,  some  of  which  has  been  finished  and  has  been  placed  in 
manuscript  form  for  publication.  The  study  of  the  source  of  al- 
falfa seed,  the  time  of  seeding  alfalfa  and  the  methods  of  raising 
alfalfa,  together  with  that  of  sweet  clover,  is  much  the  same  as  in 
the  preceding  year.  Because  of  lack  of  assistance  and  shortage  of 
funds,  the  work  on  varieties  of  grains  had  to  be  discontinued  at 
this  time. 

P^’ami  management  on  poultry  farms  and  the  cost  of  egg  pro- 
duction was  studied  during  the  past  year  in  cooperation  with  the 
poultry  department.  The  study  has  brought  to  light  some  very 
])ertiuent  information  on  this  important  industry  which  has  suffered 
so  severely  because  of  war  conditions. 

The  study  of  the  cost  of  milk  production  and  the  organization 
of  dairy  farms  was  also  made  and  completed  during  the  past  year, 
so  that  the  Station  was  enabled  to  produce  real  evidence  when  in- 
vestigations were  made  on  the  cost  of  milk  production  for  the  New 
York  and  Philadelphia  markets.  This  evidence  was  presented  to 
the  New  Yoi-k  Dairy  Committee,  appointed  to  investigate  the  cost 
of  milk  production,  the  Federal  Milk  Commission  for  the  New  York 
market,  as  well  as  the  Commission  of  the  City  of  New  York  alone, 
which  investigated  the  cost  of  milk  production. 

Much  time  has  been  given  to  emergency  work  concerning  such 
I)roblems  as  alfect  the  farm  most  vitally. 

Farm  labor  has  received  considerable  attention  through  this 
department.  .Much  time  has  been  devoted  to  the  distribution  and 
use  of  good  alfalfa  seed,  while  the  improvement  of  corn  through 
out  the  state  has  been  given  considerable  attention  through  the  ex- 


Report  of  the  Director  for  1918 


15 


tension  division  and  through  the  State  Corn  Show,  which  was  under 
the  direction  of  the  agronomy  department. 

The  marketing  and  grading  of  alfalfa  also  has  been  taken  up 
by  the  department,  so  that  we  can  now  assure  the  farmers  who  wish 
to  grow  this  crop  that  there  is  a good  and  definite  market  waiting 
for  their  product. 

Agricultural  Extension 

Emergency  war  work  has  interfered  seriously  with  the  regular 
educational  work  of  specialists  and  county  farm  demonstrators. 
Only  one  thing  really  counts  today,  and  that  is  the  winning  of  the 
war.  The  members  of  our  staff  have  neglected  their  educational 
projects  only  so  far  as  immediate  necessities  required.  The  policy 
has  been  to  maintain  the  leading  ones,  but  the  urgent  calls  of  the 
national  government  for  service  have  not  been  neglected. 

The  reports  of  leaders  in  county  farm  demonstration,  home 
demonstration,  boys’  and  girls’  club  work  and  the  reports  of  the 
specialists  are  submitted  with  a considerable  degree  of  pride.  The 
thorough  organization  of  county  farm  demonstration  is  due  largely 
to  Mr.  John  li.  Ilankinson,  who  resigned  from  the  state  leadership 
iMay  1,  1918.  Our  thanks  are  due  to  Prof.  Prank  App,  head  of  the 
department  of  agronomy  in  the  Station  and  College,  who  most 
kindly  became  acting  state  leader  and  served  most  efficiently  until 
the  close  of  the  fiscal  year. 

The  home  demonstration  work  has  been  well  organized  by  its 
state  leader,  and  is  especially  serviceable  under  present  war  con- 
ditions. 

The  state  club  work  has  been  put  upon  an  especially  satisfac- 
tory basis  by  its  state  leader. 

Our  farm  demonstration  work,  manned  by  a staff  of  earnest, 
efficient  men,  owes  much  to  the  specialists  connected  with  the  central 
office. 

Probably  the  outstanding  fact  in  the  eight  months’  experience 
is  the  development  of  community  interest  and  team  work  in  our 
various  counties,  with  the  assistance  of  capable  farm  demonstrators, 
that  is  helping  in  a practical  way  to  win  the  war.  The  extension 
staff  has  worked  as  a unit  in  a most  gratifying  degree. 

Soil  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 

The  report  for  this  year  is  short,  since  the  date  for  the  ending 
op  the  fiscal  year  has  been  changed  from  October  31  to  eJune  30. 

Field  Plots 

This  work  has  been  continued  as  outlined  in  previous  reports 
and  bulletins.  This  year  being  the  first  of  the  third  5-year  period, 
the  majority  of  the  plots  are  in  corn.  The  land  was  plowed  and 
prepared  early  and  the  corn  planted  about  the  middle  of  May.  With 
the  exception  of  considerable  cool  weather,  the  season  has  been 
favorable  and  the  corn  is  now  in  excellent  condition. 

The  scarcity  of  potash,  together  with  the  fact  that  these  plots 


16 


Bulletin  330 


have  had  generous  applications  of  this  material  for  the  past  ten 
years,  led  to  the  decision  to  omit  the  potash  from  most  of  the  plots 
this  year.  It  is  believed  that  such  omission  will  not  in  any  way 
interfere  with  these  experiments.  Other  fertilizers  were  applied 
in  accordance  with  the  plans. 

The  work  with  ditferent  varieties  of  soybeans  on  lime  and 
unlimed  plots  is  being  continued.  At  this  writing  all  varieties  on 
limed  plots  are  much  superior,  both  as  to  size  and  color,  to  corre- 
sponding varieties  on  unlirned  plots.  Samples  of  soil  have  been 
collected  from  most  of  the  plots  for  future  analysis. 

Cylinder  Experiments 

The  experiments  on  the  availability  of  nitrogen  in  different 
nitrogenous  materials  and  the  accumulation  and  utilization  of  ni- 
trogen by  means  of  leguminous  crops  are  being  continued. 

This  season  begins  the  fifth  5-year  period  for  the  loam  soil 
cylinders  where  nitrogen  availability  studies  are  being  carried  on. 
These  cylinders  are  now  in  corn  and  this  is  in  excellent  condition, 
except  where  the  fertilizer  treatment  has  been  adverse.  A partial 
summary  of  the  results  from  these  cylinders  for  the  first  twenty 
years  has  been  published. 

Potash  Availahility 

The  work  on  the  availability  of  potash  in  greensand  marl  is 
being  continued  by  means  of  pot  experiments.  The  plan  calls  for 
the  growing  of  certain  crops  such  as  soybeans  and  buckwheat  which 
may  be  able  to  utilize  slowly-available  potash,  these  crops  to  be 
used  in  turn  as  manure  crops  to  supply  potash  for  such  crops  as 
require  a more  available  supply  of  potash. 

Soil  Fungi  and  Bacteria 

On  account  of  the  withdrawal  of  Messrs.  J.  R.  Neller  and  R.  E. 
Curtis  for  other  service,  little  work  was  done  on  these  projects 
during  the  period  covered  by  this  report.  After  the  first  of  July 
the  work  will  be  carried  on  by  Dr.  S.  A.  Waksman,  who  was  former- 
ly connected  with  this  department. 

Potato  Fertilizer  Experiment 

The  cooperative  fertilizer  experiment  with  potatoes  at  Elmer 
lias  been  continued.  The  work  this  year  is  practically  a duplication 
of  last  year’s  work.  The  plan  allows  for  a study  of  the  residual 
effect  of  the  marl  which  was  used  last  year.  There  are  very  strong 
inclications  that  there  is  a close  relationship  between  the  fertilizers 
used  and  tlie  early  dying  of  the  tops.  It  is  hoped  that  the  problem 
can  be  further  studied  next  year. 

Botany 

The  projects  carried  on  in  this  department  may  be  briefly  des- 
cribed as  follows : 

Inheritance  of  Hybrid  Characters.  Subjects  in  hand  are  (1) 


Report  of  the  Director  for  1918 


17 


the  bean  hybrid  between  “Scarlet  Runner”  and  “Refugee  Wax”; 
and  (2)  the  egg-plant  hybrid,  a union  of  “Dwarf  Purple”  and 
“Scarlet  Chinese.”  Two  hundred  plants  of  the  former  and  fifty 
of  the  latter  are  now  growing  for  study  and  comparison. 

Inheritance  of  ProUficness.  Selections  of  prolific  and  non-pro- 
lific  plants  are  made  according  to  yield.  No  definite  results  have 
been  obtained  as  yet. 

The  Fixation  of  New*  Types.  Desirable  strains  often  result  in 
breeding  work. 

Size  of  Seed  as  Related  to  Position  in  the  Pod.  The  plants  of 
this  experiment  are  beans,  peas,  peanuts,  soybeans  and  grains. 

Depth  of  Planting  as  Related  to  Viability,  Vigor  and  Yield. 
Beans,  corn  and  soybeans  come  under  this  heading.  The  planting 
depths  for  beans  are  1,  2 and  3 inches;  for  corn,  1,  2,  3,  5 and  7 
inches. 

Plant  Physiology.  During  the  year  particular  attention  has 
been  given  to  the  following  lines  of  work:  A study  (1)  of  the  salt 
requirements  of  plants  at  different  stages  of  their  development,  in 
sand  and  in  solution  cultures,  (2)  of  the  relation  of  moisture  con- 
tent of  various  types  of  soil  and  sand  to  the  proportions  of  the 
fertilizer  constituents  as  these  affect  the  growth  of  plants,  and  (3) 
of  the  influence  of  moisture  content  of  the  substrata  upon  the  tox- 
icity of  certain  inorganic  salts  toward  plants. 

Entomology 

In  this  period  of  eight  months  the  entomologist  and  his  as- 
sistants have  handled  4000  letters,  and  inquiries  concerning  82 
species  of  insects  have  been  received  and  answered. 

For  the  first  time  it  has  been  determined  that  summer-strength 
commercial  lime-sulfur  (1  gallon  to  40  gallons  of  water)  may  be 
used  to  hold  the  pear  psylla  in  check. 

Satisfactory  control  of  the  plum  curculio  on  apple  has  been 
obtained  through  maintaining  a coating  of  summer-strength  com- 
mercial lime-sulfur  (1  gallon  to  40  gallons  of  water)  and  arsenate 
of  lead  (2  pounds  to  50  gallons)  on  fruit  and  foliage  from  the  fall 
of  blossoms  until  a period  of  three  weeks  has  passed.  To  maintain 
this  coating  the  ordinary  spraying  schedule  must  be  modified  by 
substituting  for  the  spray  recommended  ten  days  after  the  blossoms 
drop  a treatment  one  week  or  less  after  the  blossoms  fall  and  another 
treatment  ten  days  later. 

It  has  been  determined  that  the  sprinkling  sewage  filter  fly, 
a small  insect  of  considerable  economic  importance  and  always 
found  in  connection  with  sprinkling  sewage  filters,  may  be  destroyed 
by  submerging  the  filter  for  a period  of  24  hours  with  the  ordinary 
sewage. 

A cooperative  study  of  the  biology  of  a sprinkling  sewage 
filter  has  been  organized  and  money  provided  therefor.  The  co- 
operators  are  the  New  Jersey  State  Board  of  Health,  the  New  Jersey 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station  and  the  Joint  Sewer  Commission 
of  the  City  of  Plainfield  and  the  boroughs  of  North  Plainfield  and 
Dunellen. 


18 


Bulletin  330 


An  organization  has  been  created  and  is  now  carrying  forward, 
under  a plan  made  in  conference  by  the  growers  and  the  director 
and  entomologist  of  the  Station,  investigations  of  the  plant-food 
problems,  soil  acidity  problems,  soil  moisture  problems  and  insect 
[)roblenis  of  cranberry  culture. 

It  has  been  determined  that  08  to  100  per  cent  of  aphid  eggs, 
which  are  well  coated  with  a mixture  composed  of  commercial  lime- 
sulfur,  1 gallon  in  eight  or  nine  gallons  of  -water  to  which  40  per  cent 
nicotine  has  been  added  at  the  rate  of  1 to  500,  are  destroyed  pro- 
vided the  application  is  made  just  before  the  leaves  project  from 
the  opening  apple  dower  buds  like  tiny  squirrel  ears. 

It  has  been  determined  that  1^  to  2 per  cent  of  crude  carbolic 
acid  to  which  fish-oil  soap  is  added  at  the  rate  of  1 pound  to  b 
gallons  of  water  gives  considerable  promise  as  an  agent  for  destroy- 
ing apple  aphis  eggs  when  applied  at  the  time  above  mentioned. 
It  has  also  been  shown  that  when  40  per  cent  nicotine  (I  to  500) 
is  substituted  for  the  crude  carbolic  acid  the  same  result  follows. 

It  has  been  shown  that  card  protectors  placed  on  peach  trees 
in  late  June  and  kept  thoroughly  sealed  throughout  the  season  to 
October  first  prevents  all  or  practically  all  of  the  trees  from  being 
infested  with  worms  arising  from  eggs  laid  during  that  season. 

A contract  for  cutting  275,862  linear  feet  of  ditching  in  the 
salt  marshes  of  Ocean  and  Cape  May  counties  has  been  let  to  the 
United  States  Drainage  and  Irrigation  Company  for  the  sum  of 
$9600. 

Hudson,  Bergen,  Passaic,  Morris,  Essex,  Union,  Middlesex, 
xMomnouth,  Ocean,  Atlantic  and  Cape  May  counties  are  working 
on  the  control  of  mosquitoes  during  the  present  season.  Hudson, 
Bergen,  Essex,  Union  and  Atlantic  counties  are  attacking  the  prob- 
lem of  controlling  all  species  that  breed  within  their  limits.  Pas- 
saic County  is  attacking  the  problem  of  controlling  all  species  that 
Itreed  in  the  southern  half  of  the  county.  Middlesex,  Monmouth, 
Ocean  and  Cape  May  counties  are  devoting  practically  their  entire 
attention  to  the  salt-marsh  mosquito  problem.  Morris  County  is 
making  a survey  of  the  mosquito-breeding  places  within  its  limits 
with  the  view  to  the  formulation  of  plans  for  attacking  the  problem 
as  a whole. 

Plans  for  nios(iuito  control  at  the  Raritan  Ordnance  Depot  at 
Bonhamtown,  N.  4.;  at  the  New  York  Shipbuilding  Corporation, 
Canulen ; at  tlie  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  Shipbuilding  Com- 
panies in  Cloucester;  at  the  Atlantic  Loading  Company  in  Ellwood, 
and  the  Ikdldehem  Steel  Testing  Plant  at  JMays  Landing,  have  been 
[)repared  and  su])mitted  to  the  organizations  in  question.  The 
work  is  now  going  forward  at  the  Raritan  Ordnance  Depot  and 
at  the  Camden  and  Gloucester  Shipbuilding  plants. 

Plans  for  moscjuito  elimination  in  the  Prank  Creek  section  of 
the  Kearney  marshes  west  of  Prank  Creek  have  been  prepared  and 
submitted  to  the  Hudson  (hmnty  Mos([uito  Extermination  Com- 
mission. 

Plans  for  the  installation  of  a 3-flume  tide-gate  at  the  mouth 


Report  of  the  Director  for  11)18 


11) 


of  Saw  Mill  Creek  are  being  prepared  and  the  money  involved  has 
been  raised. 

At  the  request  of  the  chief  of  sanitation  and  health  of  the 
Emergency  Fleet  Corporation,  plans  for  the  control  of  mosquitoes 
at  the  International  Shipbuilding  Corporation  plant,  located  on  Hog 
Island,  for  the  AVestinghouse  electric  plant,  located  at  Essington, 
and  various  housing  propositions  connected  therewith,  and  plans  for 
the  control  of  mosquitoes  at  the  three  shipbuilding  yards  in  Wil- 
mington, North  Carolina,  have  been  prepared.  Work  is  now  going 
forward  at  these  points. 

An  investigation  has  been  made  and  plans  for  mosquito  control 
for  the  area  beginning  at  Penns  Grove  and  extending  northward 
to  Camden  and  Gloucester  have  been  prepared. 

All  told,  these  plans  are  made  to  provide  protection  for  ap- 
proximately 177,000  people  at  a cost  of  a little  less  than  half  a 
million  dollars. 

Projects  involving  the  expenditure  of  $263,000  are  now  going 
forAvard,  and  the  employees  and  persons  living  adjacent  to  the 
International  Shipbuilding  Corporation,  the  Westinghouse  Electric 
Company,  the  Wilmington  Shipyards,  the  NeAV  York  Shipbuilding 
Corporation,  the  New  Jersey  Shipbuilding  Company,  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Shipbuilding  Company  and  a Bag  Loading  Plant  below  Glou- 
cester either  are  already  or  soon  will  be  atforded  a reasonable  degree 
of  protection  from  the  mosquito  pest. 

Plant  Pathology 

Mr.  C.  M.  Haenseler,  Mr.  R.  P.  Poole,  Mr.  F.  P.  Schlatter 
and  Dr.  W.  H.  Martin  are  in  the  United  States  Military  Service. 
Mr.  C.  A.  Schwarze  resigned  as  assistant  nursery  inspector  June  1, 
1918.  Dr.  L.  M.  Massey,  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, has  been  assigned  to  New  elersey  for.extension  work  in  plant 
pathology  and  is  stationed  at  New  Brunswick.  Mr.  Erdman  West, 
of  Pennsylvania  State  College,  has  been  employed  as  assistant  nur- 
sery inspector. 

The  research  work  has  been  greatly  reduced  because  of  war 
conditions,  but  studies  are  being  continued  on  tomatoes  and  potatoes 
and  on  other  diseases  wherever  possible. 

It  is  very  important  that  special  studies  be  made  on  seed-bed 
diseases  and  upon  the  diseases  of  truck  crops,  and  also  upon  the 
influence  of  disease  on  perishable  products  in  shipment. 

There  should  be  another  worker  in  the  department  giving  the 
greater  part  of  his  time  to  the  study  of  resistant  strains  of  plants. 
There  should  be  another  Avorker  devoting  practically  all  of  his  time 
to  the  study  of  the  diseases  of  potatoes,  especially  those  that  are 
transmitted  in  the  seed.  Studies  should  also  be  continued  on  celery 
and  other  truck  crops. 

It  is  very  important  that  something  should  be  done  to  put  the 
herbarium  in  condition  for  work  to  the  best  advantage. 

The  plant  disease  survey  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Plant 
Industry,  carried  on  in  cooperation  Avith  the  various  states,  is  prov- 


20 


Bulletin  330 


ing  very  helpful  and  there  should  be  a more  thorough  survey  of  the 
diseases  of  New  Jersey. 


Publications 

The  office  of  the  editor  has  been  concerned  during  the  fiscal 
year  with  the  following  main  lines  of  activity:  (1)  the  revision  of 
the  mailing  list,  (2)  the  editing  and  publishing  of  the  regular  Ex- 
periment Station  and  extension  publications,  (3)  special  publica- 
tons,  (4)  special  publicity  work  and  (5)  plans  for  the  improvement 
and  expansion  of  the  publications  and  publicity  work. 

The  revision  of  the  mailing  list  has  involved  much  time  and 
effort.  Several  thousand  ''dead”  addresses  have  been  dropped 
from  the  old  list ; names  of  persons  on  the  old  list  who  still  desire 
our  publications  have  been  retained  and  new  addresses  have  been 
added  through  the  use  of  the  mailing  lists  of  the  State  Department 
of  Agriculture,  the  county  boards  of  agriculture  and  the  poultry 
associations.  The  work  of  revision  is  still  in  progress  at  this  writing. 
The  list  has  been  carefully  classified,  and  through  the  use  of  a new 
addressograph  machine  equipped  with  a selective  device,  which  was 
installed  during  the  year,  a great  saving  is  being  accomplished  in 
our  publications  as  well  as  better  service  to  persons  receiving  them. 
It  is  planned  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  mailing  service  still 
further  by  the  use  of  a graphotype  machine,  making  it  possible  for 
us  to  make  our  address  plates  in  our  own  office,  as  soon  as  funds 
will  permit. 

The  following  regular  publications  have  been  issued  during  the 
year,  and  have  been  or  will  soon  be  sent  to  the  mailing  list : 

Bulletins 

No. 

315  Analyses  of  Materials  Sold  as  Insecticides  and  Fungicides  for 
1917. 

316  The  Influence  of  Lime  upon  the  Yield  of  Dry  Matter  and  Nitrogen 
Content  of  Alfalfa. 

317  Report  of  the  Director  for  the  Year  Ending  October  3,  1917. 

318  Analyses  of  Commercial  Fertilizers  and  Ground  Bone:  Analyses 
of  Agricultural  Lime. 

319  A Study  of  Physiological  Balance  for  Buckwheat  Grown  in  Three- 
Salt  Solutions. 

320  Farm  Profits  and  Factors  Influencing  Farm  Profits  on  460  Dairy 
Farms  in  Sussex  County,  N.  J. 

321  Fertilizer  Registrations  for  1918. 

322  Results  of  Seed  Inspection,  1917. 

323  The  Value  of  Nitrate  of  Soda  in  Crop  Production. 

324  The  Strawberry  Weevil. 

325  Poultry  Buildings:  Laying  and  Breeding  Houses. 

327  Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs  and  Registrations  for  1918. 

32  8 Some  Important  Orchard  Plant  Lice. 

Circulars 

No. 

88  Common  Diseases  of  Berries. 

89  Common  Diseases  of  Garden  Vegetables  and  Truck  Crops. 

90  The  Feeding  and  Management  of  Swine. 

91  The  Bean  Weevils. 

92  The  Angoumois  Grain  Moth, 


Report  of  the  Director  for  1918 


21 


93  Spray  Calendar  for  Apples  and  Quinces. 

9*1^  Spray  Calendar  for  the  Peach. 

95  Seed  and  Soil  Treatment  for  the  Control  of  Potato  Scab. 

96  Leaf  Bligm,  of  the  Tomato. 

97  Common  Diseases  of  Ornamental  Plants. 

76  Spray  Calendar  for  Pears.  (Reprint.) 

77  Spray  Calendar  for  Sweet  Cherry.  (Reprint.) 

78  Spray  Calendar  for  Plum.  (Reprint.) 


Reports 

1917.  Thirty-Eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Agri- 
cultural Experiment  Station,  and  Thirtieth  Annual  Report  of  the  New 
Jersey  Agricultural  College  Experiment  Station. 

Hints  to  Ponltrymcn  (monthly),  vol.  6,  no.  2-9. 


Publications  of  the  Division  of  Extension 


Extension  Bulletin 
Vol.  1,  No.  14. 
No.  15. 
No.  16. 
No.  17. 
No.  18. 


Proper  Care  and  Use  of  Farm  Manure. 

Home  Canning  and  Curing  of  Meats. 

Boys’  and  Girls’  Club  Work  in  New  Jersey. 
Breads:  Good  Breads  that  will  save  Wheat. 
Farm  Labor. 


The  Farm  Demonstration  Exchange  (monthly),  Vol.  IV,  No.  1-5. 
The  Weekly  News  Letter,  vol.  5,  no.  1-35. 

Poster  Bulletin  1,  “Prevent  Waste  of  Farm  Manure”. 


Also,  the  editor  has  assisted  in  the  preparation  of  the  monthly 
news  letters  of  the  county  offices  of  farm  demonstration. 

Beginning  with  January,  1918,  provision  was  made  for  the 
editor’s  office  to  handle  the  editorship  of  the  ‘‘Voorhees  Parmer”, 
a monthly  agricultural  journal  established  by  the  E.  B.  Yoorhees 
Agricultural  Society  in  1917.  The  members  of  the  Experiment 
Station  staff  have  given  valuable  cooperation  in  conducting  this 
journal.  The  station  editor  has  continued  his  work  with  ‘‘Soil 
Science,”  which  is  published  by  the  Waverly  Press,  of  Baltimore, 
Md.  This  journal  has  furnished  a useful  medium  for  the  publica- 
tion of  many  research  articles  prepared  at  the  Experiment  Station, 
and  has  thus  effected  a saving  of  station  funds  which  would  have 
otherwdse  been  used  in  printing  the  papers  as  station  publications. 
The  “Experiment  Station  News”  has  been  continued  as  a medium 
for  local  Experiment  Station  publicity  of  interest  to  the  staff  mem- 
bers, and  for  the  local  newspapers. 

A limited  amount  of  special  publicity  work  has  been  done  for 
the  Experiment  Station.  Special  articles  have  been  written  for  the 
daily  papers  of  New  Jersey,  and  distributed  through  one  of  the 
news  agencies  of  the  state. 

The  editor  has  been  greatly  assisted  by  the  cooperation  of  the 
Publicity  Committee  of  the  Experiment  Station  Council.  The 
committee  made  a study  of  the  present  publicity  system  and  its 
needs,  and  outlined  a policy  which  was  adopted  by  the  Experiment 
Station  Council.  Several  of  the  recommendations  have  already 
been  put  into  effect,  and  it  is  planned  to  follow  out  the  whole  pro- 
gram as  soon  as  conditions  permit.  A summary  of  the  recommenda- 
tions follows:  (1)  Brevity,  clearness  of  expression  and  emphasis 


22 


Bulletin  330 


of  the  practical  aspects  of  recommendations  in  popular  bulletins  and 
circulars,  (2)  the  more  extensive  use  of  suitable  illustrations  in 
popular  publications,  (3)  the  publication  of  condensed,  one-page 
extension  circulars  or  cards,  (4)  the  enlargement  of  the  mailing- 
list,  (5)  the  publication  of  a well-illustrated  circular  describing  in 
a popular  way,  the  work  of  the  Experiment  Station,  (6)  the  use 
of  a slip  bearing  summarized  information  concerning  the  Experi- 
ment Station,  to  be  enclosed  with  correspondence,  (7)  a publicity 
service  to  the  newspapers  of  the  state  and  other  agencies,  consisting 
of  special  multigraphed  letters,  (8)  the  establishment  of  a clipping 
service,  (9)  the  preparation  of  cardboard  posters  telling  how  th*'^ 
Experiment  Station  may  be  of  assistance  to  the  farmer,  to  be  dis- 
tributed about  the  state,  (10)  the  installation  of  a midtigraph  ma- 
chine, and  (11)  provision  in  the  budget  for  more  finances  to  support 
publicity  work. 

This  report  indicates  the  needs  of  the  editor’s  office  and  shows 
the  lines  of  work  along  which  effort  is  being  made.  Throughout 
the  year  special  attention  has  been  given  to  the  emergency  condi- 
tions arising  from  the  war,  and  a large  proportion  of  the  work  has 
been  directly  concerned  with  problems  of  increasing  food  production 
as  related  to  war  needs. 


Technical  Papers 

Experiments  -with  Sulfur-Phosphate  Composts  Conducted  under  Field 
Conditions.  J.  G.  Lipman  and  H.  C.  McLean.  Soil  Science,  vol.  5,  p.  243 
(1918). 

Twenty  Years’  Work  on  the  Availability  of  Nitrogen  in  Nitrate  of  Soda, 
Ammonium  Sulfate,  Dried  Blood  and  Farm  Manures.  J.  G.  Lipman  and 
A.  W.  Blair.  Soil  Science,  vol.  5,  p.  291  (1918). 

Abortiveness  as  Related  to  Position  in  the  Legume.  Byron  D.  Halsted. 
Proceedings  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Annual  Meeting,  Soeiety  for  the  Promotion 
of  Agricultural  Science,  November,  1917. 

Color  in  Vegetable  Fruits.  Byron  D.  Halsted.  Journal  of  Heredity,  vol. 
9,  p.  18,  January,  1918. 

Reciprocal  Breeding  in  Tomatoes.  Byron  D.  Halsted.  Journal  of  Herdi- 
ty,  vol.  9,  p.  169,  April,  1918. 

Toxicity  of  Monobasic  Phosphates  Towards  Soybeans  Grown  in  Soil  and 
Solution  Cultures.  J.  W.  Shive.  Soil  Science,  vol.  5,  no.  2,  p.  87-122  (1918). 

A Comparison  of  Salt  Requirements  for  Young  and  for  Mature  Buck- 
wheat plants  in  Water  Cultures  and  Sand  Cultures.  J.  W.  Shive  and  W.  H. 
Martin.  American  Journal  of  Botany,  vol.  5,  no.  4,  p.  186-191  (1918). 

Effects  of  Ammonium  Sulfate  in  Nutrient  Solutions  on  the  Growth  of 
Soybeans  in  Sand  Cultures.  M.  I.  Wolkoff.  Soil  Science,  vol.  5,  no.  2,  p. 
123-150(1918).^ 

The  Oxidation  of  Sulfur  by  Microorganisms  in  its  Relation  to  the  Avail- 
ability of  Phosphates.  H.  C.  McLean.  Soil  Science,  vol.  4,  no.  4,  p.  337 

(1917). 

Studies  on  the  Correlation  between  the  Production  of  Carbon  Dioxide  and 
the  Accumulation  of  Ammonia  by  Soil.  J.  R.  Neller.  Soil  Science,  vol.  5, 
no.  3.  p.  225  (1918). 

Some  Availability  Studies  with  Ammonium  Phosphate  and  its  Chemical- 
Biological  Effects  upon  the  Soil.  F.  E.  Allison.  Soil  Science,  vol.  5,  no.  i, 
p.  I (1918). 

d'he  Mosquito  Question:  Migration  as  a Factor  in  Control.  Thomas  J. 
Headlee.  Scientifie  American  Supplement , vol.  85,  no.  2205,  p.  214,  April  6, 
1918. 


Report  op  the  Director  for  1918 


23 


Effective  Methods  of  Fly  Control : ^ A Review  of  the  Factors  that  Under- 
lie the  Problem.  T.  J.  Headlee.  Scientific  American  Supplement,  vol.  85, 
no.  2201,  p.  150,  March  9,  1918. 

The  Problem  of  Mosquito  Control.  T.  J.  Headlee,  Proceedings  of  the 
Entomological  Society  of  Ontario,  January,  1918.  _ 

Studies  on  the  Morphology  and  Susceptibility  of  the  Eggs  of  Aphis 
avence  Fab.,  Aphis  pomi  DeGeer  and  Aphis  sorbi  Kalt.  Alvah  Peterson. 
Journal  of  Economic  Entomology,  vol.  10,  p.  556-560  (1917). 

Some  Experiments  on  the  Adults  and  Eggs  of  the  Peach  Tree  Borer, 
Sanninoidea  exitiosa  Say  and  Other  Notes.  Alvah  Peterson.  Journal  of 
Economic  Entomology,  vol.  ii,  p.  46-55  (1918). 

The  Rectal  Tracheae  and  Rectal  Respiration  in  Mecistogaster  Modestus 
(Odonata).  Mitchel  Carroll.  Proceedings  of  the  Philadelphia  Academy  of 
Natural  Sciences  for  1918. 

Popular  Papers 

Our  Fertility  Resources  as  Bearing  on  the  Present  Emergency.  J.  G. 
Lipman.  N.  J.  State  Department  of  Agriculture  Bulletin  ii,  January,  1918. 

Soil  Bacteria  as  a Factor  in  Soil  P'ertility.  J.  G.  Lipman,  Philadelphia 
Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture,  Bethayres,  Pa.,  March,  1918. 

Articles  on  Organic  Matter,  Lime  and  Fertilizers.  Alva  Agee.  The 
Farmer’s  Own  Encyclopedia. 

How  Shall  New  Jersey  Peaches  be  Graded  and  Marked?  M.  A.  Blake. 
Proceedings  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Horticultural  Society,  1917. 

The  Fruit  Exhibit  at  the  Trenton  Fair.  M.  A.  Blake.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
November,  1917. 

Observations  upon  Summer  Pruning  of  the  Apple  and  Peach.  M.  A. 
Blake.  Proceedings  of  American  Society  for  Horticulural  Science,  1917. 

Important  Points  in  Apple  Spraying.  M.  A.  Blake.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
May,  1918. 

Suggestions  to  Fruit  Growers.  M.  A.  Blake.  Voorhees  Farmer,  March, 
1918. 

Fine  Apple  Crop  in  Demonstration  Orchards.  M.  A.  Blake.  Voorhees 
Farmer,  July,  1918. 

Apples  and  Peaches  Ripening  Early.  M.  A.  Blake.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
July,  1918. 

Experiments  on  Making  Peach  Syrup  and  Marmalade.  M.  A.  Blake. 
Voorhees  Farmer,  July,  1918. 

Paper  Pots  and  Dirt  Bands.  L.  G.  Schermerhorn.  Rural  New  Yorker, 
March  2,  1918. 

Notes  on  New  Varieties  of  Strawberries.  A.  J.  Farley.  Voorhees  Farm- 
er, June,  1918. 

In  the  Interests  of  Fair  Play.  John  P.  Helyar.  Seed  World,  July,  1918. 

Make  it  Buckwheat.  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer,  May,  1918. 

Alfalfa  in  New  Jersey  Gets  Big  Boost.  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
February,  1918. 

Corn  Show  a Big  Success.  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer,  February, 
1918. 

What  About  Next  Year’s  Farm  Labor?  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
January,  1918. 

New  Jersey’s  1918  Corn  Crop.  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer,  April, 
T918. 

Caring  for  the  Crops,  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer,  June,  1918. 

Alfalfa  Association  Making  Progress.  Frank  App.  Voorhees  Farmer,  • 
March,  1918. 

Home  Preservation  of  Eggs.  R.  R,  Hannas.  Rural  New  Yorker,  April 
6,  1918. 

Quality  in  Market  Eggs.  R.  R.  Hannas.  Country  Gentlemen,  April  27, 
1918. 

Care  of  Growing  Chicks.  R.  R.  Hannas.  Pennsylavnia  Farmer,  June  i, 
1918. 

The  Relationship  of  the  Manufacturer  to  the  State  Official.  C.  S.  Cath- 
cart.  Feeding  Stuffs  Trade  Paper,  July,  1918. 

Fertilizers  Essential  for  Big  Crops.  A.  W.  Blair.  Hoard’s  Dairyman, 
February  15,  1918. 


24 


Bulletin  330 


An  Experiment  in  Pig  Feeding.  J.  M.  Hunter,  Rural  New  Yorker, 
July,  1918. 

Feeding  Soft  Corn  to  Hogs,  J.  M.  Hunter.  Voorhees  Farmer,  Novem- 
ber, 1917, 

Hogs  and  The  World  War.  J.  M.  Hunter.  Voorhees  Farmer,  December, 

1917. 

The  Winter  Care  of  Farm  Horses.  J.  M,  Hunter.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
January,  1918, 

Replies  to  What  the  Farmers  are  Asking.  J.  M.  Hunter,  Voorhees 
Farmer,  February,  1918. 

Replies  to  What  the  Farmers  are  Asking.  J.  M.  Hunter.  Voorhees 
Farmer,  March,  1918. 

Replies  to  What  the  Farmers  are  Asking.  J.  M.  Hunter.  Voorhees 
Farmer,  April,  1918. 

The  Swine  Industry  in  New  Jersey.  J.  M.  Hunter.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
May,  1918. 

Use  Wheat  Substitutes  for  Pigs.  J,  M.  Hunter.  Voorhees  Farmer, 
July,  1918. 

* Dairying  in  Winter,  J.  W.  Bartlett.  Pennsylvania  Farmer,  January, 

1918. 

Calf  Club  Work  in  New  Jersey.  J.  W.  Bartlett.  Kimball's  Dairy  Farmer, 
July  15,  1918. 

The  New  Jersey  State  Dairymen’s  Association.  J.  W,  Bartlett.  Hoard’s 
Dairyman,  June  12,  1918. 

Control  of  Orchard  Plant  Lice.  T.  J.  Headlee.  Pennsylvania  Farmer, 
March,  1918. 

Staff  Changes 


A list  of  changes  in  the  station  staff  during  the  past  eight 
months  is  given  herewith : 

Appointments 


C.  S.  Lamson 

Isabel  V.  Delaney 

William  Whynman 

Cyrus  Witmer 

A.  Sydney  Carroll 

Ernest  O.  Winkler 

Hazel  H.  Moran 

Frank  G.  Helyar 

Maurice  Fincken 

Nils  B.  Swenson 

Helen  L.  Goodwin 

Sarah  E.  Van  Middlesworth 

M.  E.  Stone 

C.  S.  Clarkson 

W.  B.  J.  Reitze 

Noyes  S.  Purrington 

Mitchell  Carroll 

Cyrus  H.  Harrison 

Clifford  Strohmeyer 

William  J.  Stoneback 

Russell  H.  Sears 

Irving  L.  Owen 

Fred  Boorman 

Robert  H.  Cole 

Louis  Schwartz 

Fred  C.  Corwin 

F.  A.  Hall 

P.  C.  Cameron 

E.  B.  Bleeker 

Fred  Freund 

Charles  M,  Mulhollan 


Research  Assistant 
Telephone  Operator 
Poultry  Assistant 
Assistant,  Soils  Department 
Teamster 
Helper 

Assistant  Librarian 

Associate  in  Station  Administrat’n 

Orchard  Foreman 

Helper 

Statistician 

Office  Assistant 

Helper 

Assistant  Chemist 

Contest  Foreman 

Fertilizer  Sampler 

First  Assistant  in  Entomology 

Helper 

Helper 

Assistant  Chemist 

Orchard  Assistant 

Associate  Agronomist  & Farm  Mgr, 

Helper 

Assistant  Chemist 
Assistant  Chemist 
Helper 
Helper 

Temporary  Assistant  Biologist 

Field  Assistant 

Helper 

Helper 


Report  op  the  Director  for  1918 


25 


The  following  also  were  employed  in  a temporary  capacity:  George 
W.  Woods,  James  McPherson,  Felix  Ramsey,  Zelik  Schutzbank,  Freder- 
ick C.  Bruer,  Richard  Goines,  Harold  Barbour,  Isaac  Reis,  Cornelius  A. 
Perry,  Svenn  A.  Rusch,  Harry  M.  Allen,  Frank  Welchman,  Louis  Zim- 
merman, Walter  R.  Robbers,  Dudley  Cobb,  Charles  H.  Cane,  Benjamin 
Masurovsky,  Eugene  W.  Bates  and  Joseph  Fox. 


Joseph  R.  Neller 
Robert  F.  Poole 
Charles  S.  Lamson 
William  H.  Martin 
Russell  E.  Long 
Edward  W.  Harvey 
Hubert  F.  Brennan 
Merrill  G.  Clayton 
W.  Raymond  Stone 
D.  James  Kay 
Paul  S.  Race 
James  G.  Rugh 
Allen  G.  Waller 

Marie  A.  Klein 
Joseph  Schmidt 
George  T.  Reid 

C.  S.  Clarkson 

R.  L.  Scharring-Hausen 

Joseph  Kovanda 

William  B.  J.  Reitze 

Melvin  Cosh 

John  H,  Hankinson 

Robert  Poultney 

Charles  S.  Van  Nuis 

Willard  C.  Thompson 
William  Whynman 


liesignations 

Research  Assistant 
Research  Assistant 
Research  Assistant 
Research  Assistant 
Office  Assistant 
Research  Assistant 
Night  Watchman 
Helper 

Orchard  Foreman 
Assistant  Chemist 
Helper 

Contest  Foreman 
Assistant  Extension  Specialist  in 
Agronomy 

Statistician 

Helper 

County  Supt.  of  Farm  Demonstra- 
tion for  Burlington  County. 
Assistant  Chemist 
Field  Assistant 
Helper 

Contest  Foreman 
Helper 

State  Leader  of  Farm  Demonstra- 
tion. 

Assistant  Extension  Specialist  in 
Dairy  Husbandry. 
Associate  Agronomist  and  Farm 
Manager. 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Poultry  Assistant. 


The  following  members  of  the  staff  have  resigned  to  enter  the 
military  service  of  the  country:  Louis  K.  Wilkins,  Herman  J.  Levine, 
David  Schmidt,  Orville  C.  Schultz,  Conrad  M.  Haenseler,  Thurlow  Nel- 
son, John  Monteith,  Jr.,  Lawrence. G.  Gillam,  Howard  F.  Huber,  Julian 
F.  Miller,  Fidel  P.  Schlatter,  Richard  Goines,  William  H.  McCallum, 
George  M.  Dunn,  Carl  Egerton,  J.  Manderson  Evans,  Robert  F.  Poole, 
Joseph  R.  Neller,  William  H.  Martin,  Russell  E.  Long,  Allen  G.  Waller, 
Robert  P.  Marsh,  Charles  S.  Lamson,  Willard  C.  Thompson,  William 
Whynman,  George  W.  Martin,  David  A.  Coleman,  Carl  R.  Fellers,  Joseph 
Schmidt,  W.  J.  Stoneback,  A.  P.  Muller,  Robert  E.  .Welsh,  Robert  I. 
Clark,  Harry  M.  Allen,  J.  H.  Dumm,  Leslie  Morrow,  L.  W.  Hill,  Robert 
Poultney,  A.  H.  Sanford,  William  H.  Nulton  and  Albert  Smith. 


4 


V 


' ■ v-^v. 


■\t 


I 


>(•  v\^=>  J 


'1  ■ ^ 


/ 


j 


“ '■  . Z' 


V 


ANALYSES  OF  COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS, 
FERTILIZER  SUPPLIES  AND  HOME  MIXTURES 

^Rsrfr  OF  iiy^s:s 
APR  30  1919 


JSTEW  JEE8EY 
AGRICULTURAL 

xperimeiit 

BULLETIN  331 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  ftGRIGULTURftL  EXPE,RIMENT  STftTIONS* 


NEW  BRUNSWICK.  N.  J. 

STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 
BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 


His  Excellency  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College, 


JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Pii.D Professor 

County  Name  Address 

Atlantic  William  A.  Blair  Elwood 

Bergen  Arthur  Lozier  Ridgewood 

Burlington  R.  R.  Lippincott  Vincentown 

Camden  Ephraim  T.  Gill  Haddonfield 

Cape  May  Charles  Vanaman  Dias  Creek 

Cumberland  Charles  F.  Seabrook  Bridgeton 

Essex  Zenos  G.  Crane  Caldwell 

Gloucester  Wilbur  Beckett  Swedesboro 

Hudson  Diedrich  Bahrenburg  Union  Hill 

Hunterdon  Egbert  T.  Bush  Stockton 

Mercer  Josiah  T.  Allinson  Yardville 


of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County 

Name 

Address 

Middlesex 

James  Neilson 

New  Bruns’k 

Monmouth 

William  H.  Reid 

Tennent 

Morris 

J ohn  C.  .W elsh 

Ger’n  Valley 

Ocean 

James  E.  Otis 

Tuckerton 

Passaic 

Isaac  A.  Serven 

Clifton 

Salem 

Charles  R.  Hires 

Salem 

Somerset 

Joseph  Larocque 

Bemardsviirc 

Sussex 

Robert  V.  Armstror 

!g  Augusta 

Union 

John  Z.  Hatfield 

Scotch  Plains 

Warren 

James  I.  Cooke 

Delaware 

STAFF. 


Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss 

Harriet  E.  Gowen 

Frank  App,  B.Sc Agronomist. 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.Sc.  ..  Associate  Agronomist. 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

Edson  j.  Currier,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

F.  Raymond  Hunter Assistant  Chemist. 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

William  M.  Regan,  A.M.. Dairy  Husbandman. 
Forrest  Button,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Dairy  Husband’n. 
John  FIill,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 
Walter  R.  Robbers, 

Superintendent  of  Advanced  Registry. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc.  .Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc. ..  .Asst.  Entomologist. 
Vincent  J.  Breazeale, 

Foreman,  V^egetable  Gardening. 
.■\rtiiur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc.,  Acting  Horticulturist. 


.Director. 

.Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

.Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

.Chief  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 

Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

, Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 

William  Schieferstein Orchard  Foreman. 

Lyman  G.  Schermerhorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 

11.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.Agr.  . Poultry  Husbandman. 
Willard  C.  Thompson,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  M.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

George  H.  Pound,  B.Sc Poultry  Assistant. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

Elmer  H.  Wene Poultry  Foreman. 

Torn  P.  PIelyar,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B Assistant  Editor. 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian. 

Leslie  E."  Hazen,  M.E., 

In  Charge  of  Rural  Engineering. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 


W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. 


STAFF. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Director. 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B Chief  Clerk. 


John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.Sc Assistant  in  Botany. 

Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding. 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.D.  ..  .Asst.  Entomologist. 
.\UGUSTA  E.  Meske.  ...  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 
Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D.  ...  Plant  Pathologist. 
William  H.  Martin,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Plant  Pathologist. 


Gertrude  E.  Macpherson,  A.B., 

Research  Assistant  in  Plant  Pathology. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 

Jacob  Joffe,  B.Sc Research  Assistant 

Cyrus  Witmer,  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


Stair  list  revised  to  February  1.  1919. 


(2^ 


NEW  JERSEY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 


AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Louis  A.  Clinton,  M.Sc.,  Director. 

Mrs.  Frank  App,  Acting  State  Leader  of  Home 
Demonstration. 

Victor  G.  Aubry,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  VV.  Bartlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Superintend- 
ent and  State  Leader  of  Farm  Demonstra- 
tion. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fertility 
and  Agronomy. 

Marjory  Eells,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 


Edna  Gulick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 

Howard  F.  Huber,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  State 
Leader  of  Farm  Demonstration. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

M.  Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Carl  R.  Woodward.  B.Sc.,  Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B.,  Assistant  Editor. 


H.  E.  Baldinger,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for  Sus- 
sex County. 

William  P.  Brodie,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent, 
Salem  County. 

Frank  A.  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County. 

Laura  V.  Clark,  A.B.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Newark. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Elwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Monmouth  County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  for 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  A.  Hoffman,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Morris  County. 

Harry  B.  Holcombe,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Burlington  County. 


William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Elva  Hughes,  Assistant  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Burlington  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

May  D.  Kemp,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

Zelma  Monroe,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

Adelia  F.  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 

Cumberland  County. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cape  May  County. 

W.  Raymond  Stone,  Demonstrator  for  Bergen 
County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 

Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  Wettyen,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 

Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 

Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Staff  2 

Tabulated  Analyses  5 

Examination  of  Unmixed  Fertilizer  Materials 6 

Nitrate  of  Soda 8 

15  per  cent  Nitrate  of  Soda 8 

Sulphate  of  Ammonia 9 

Dried  Blood 9 

Dried  and  Ground  Fish 9 

Crude  Fish  9 

King  Crab  9 

Fish  and  Tankage 10 

Tankage  10 

16  per  cent  Acid  Phosphate 12 

14  per  cent  Acid  Phosphate 13 

Basic  Lime  Phosphate 13 

The  Examination  of  Home  Mixtures 14 

Commercial  Fertilizers 16 

h'urnishing  Nitrogen,  ITosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 16 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  PhosjdToric  Acid 30 


(4) 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS 
BULLETIN  331 

OCTOBER  10,  1918 


ANALYSES  OF  COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS, 
FERTILIZER  SUPPLIES  AND  HOME  MIXTURES 


Charles  S.  Cathcart,  State  Chemist"^ 

The  fertilizer  law  of  this  state  requires  an  inspection  of  the  mater- 
ials sold  as  fertilizers,  and  such  an  inspection  includes  the  collection 
of  the  samples  as  well  as  the  chemical  analyses  of  the  various 
brands  located.  The  collection  of  the  samples  for  1918  has  been 
completed  and  this  bulletin  contains  the  results  of  the  chemical 
analyses  of  practically  all  of  the  brands  collected  during  the  spring 
months,  with  the  exception -of  the  samples  of  ground  bone  and 
sheep  manure. 

A collection  was  made  of  the  shipments  of  fertilizer  intended  for 
fall  use  and  the  results  of  these  analyses,  as  well  as  the  analyses  of 
the  brands  that  were  collected  in  the  spring  and  are  not  reported  at 
this  time,  will  appear  in  a later  bulletin.  This  second  bulletin  will 
also  contain  a discussion  of  the  entire  inspection. 

Tabulated  Analyses 

The  results  that  are  tabulated  on  the  following  pages  show  the 
composition  of  204  brands  of  fertilizers  containing  nitrogen,  pbos- 
phoric  acid  and  potash,  274  brands  containing  nitrogen  and  phos- 
phoric acid,  5 home  mixtures  and  114  samples  of  fertilizer  materials. 

In  addition  to  the  above  the  analyses  of  17  duplicate  samples  of 
commercial  fertilizers  are  tabulated  in  their  proper  places.  The 
total  number  of  analyses  reported  in  this  bulletin  is  614. 

*The  chemical  analyses  were  made  by  Ralph  L.  Willis,  Robert  H.  Cole, 
Louis  Schwartz  and  Archie  C.  Wark. 


(5) 


6 


Bulletin  331 

Examination  of  Unmixed  Fertilizer  Materials 
The  results  of  the  examinations  of  114  samples  of  standard  un- 
mixed materials  are  given  in  the  following  pages  in  tabular  form. 
With  a few  exceptions,  the  analyses  indicate  that  the  materials  were 
of  good  quality  but  that  there  is  a great  necessity  to  study  the  guar- 
antees as  given  in  order  to  know  the  total  amount  of  plant-food 
that  will  be  obtained  in  a given  weight  of  the  material. 

Nitrate  of  Soda.  Twenty-two  samples  of  nitrate  of  soda  were 
examined  and  the  nitrogen  content  varied  from  14.40  to  15.45,  with 
an  average  of  15.16  per  cent.  The  samples  contained  from  87.4  to 
93.8,  with  an  average  of  92  per  cent  of  nitrate  of  soda. 

One  of  the  samples  represented  the  material  purchased  from  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  and  contained  15.45  per 
cent  of  nitrogen. 

Two  samples  of  15  per  cent  nitrate  of  soda  were  examined  and 
they  contained  12.20  and  12.15  per  cent  o4  nitrogen,  respectively, 
the  guarantee  stated  in  terms  of  nitrogen  being  12.34  per  cent. 

Sulphate  of  Ammonia.  Only  one  sample  of  this  material  was  re- 
ceived and  it  contained  19.97  per  cent  of  nitrogen,  the  guarantee 
being  20.50  per  cent.  The  nitrogen  content  was  equivalent  to  94.2 
per  cent  of  sulphate  of  ammonia. 

Dried  Blood.  Three  samples  of  material  sold  as  dried  blood  were 
examined.  One  of  these  samples,  however,  contained  an  excess  of 
phosphoric  acid  and  a corresponding  decrease  in  its  content  of 
nitrogen,  which  indicates  that  it  was  not  an  unmixed  product. 

The  two  samples  of  dried  blood  averaged  12.78  per  cent  of  nitro- 
gen and  1.00  per  cent  of  phosphoric  acid. 

Dried  and  Ground  Fish.  Four  samples  were  examined  and  the 
nitrogen  content  varied  from  8.24  to  9.12,  with  an  average  of  8.75 
per  cent.  The  content  of  total  phosphoric  acid  varied  from  1.10  to 
8.06,  with  an  average  of  4.18  per  cent. 

Crude  Fish.  The  one  sample  examined  contained  7.60  per  cent  of 
nitrogen  and  5.72  per  cent  of  phosphoric  acid. 

King  Crab.  Three  samples  of  this  material  were  received  and 
the  nitrogen  content  varied  from  7.06  to  9.90,  with  an  average  of 
8.86  per  cent.  The  content  of  phosphoric  acid  varied  from  0.91  to 
1.44,  with  an  average  of  1.13  per  cent. 

Fish  and  Tankage.  Two  samples  of  this  material  were  examined 
and  had  practically  the  same  composition.  The  average  composition 
is : nitrogen  2.87  per  cent  and  phosphoric  acid  7.08  per  cent. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers  7 

Tankage.  Thirty-seven  samples  were  examined  and  the  usual 
variations  were  noted : 

Two  samples,  Nos.  18310  and  18352,  represented  a material  sold 
by  one  manufacturer  as  “Prepared  Tankage.”  Nearly  three-fourths 
of  the  nitrogen  content  was  derived  from  ammonia  salts  and  the 
organic  nitrogen  was  of  low-grade  quality.  The  analysis  indicated 
that  this  material  was  not  what  is  known  as  tankage  and  the  manu- 
facturers decided  to  discontinue  its  sale  under  the  brand  name  as 
given. 

Sample  No.  180130  was  in  such  a condition  that  it  was  impossible 
to  make  the  mechanical  analysis.  This  shipment,  and  also  ship- 
ments represented  by  Samples  Nos.  18603,  18233,  18305  and  180193, 
were  not  accompanied  by  the  required  guarantees. 

Omitting  samples  Nos.  18310  and  18352,  the  content  of  nitrogen 
in  the  samples  varied  from  3.03  to  8.03,  with  an  average  of  5.72  per 
cent;  and  the  content  of  phosphoric  acid  varied  from  5.40  to  23.46, 
with  an  average  of  11.89  per  cent. 

The  mechanical  condition  of  the  samples  was  as  variable  as  the 
content  of  nitrogen  and  phosphoric  acid.  The  finest  sample  con- 
tained 66  per  cent,  and  the  coarsest  sample  contained  only  29  per 
cent  of  material  that  was  fined  than  1/50  inch. 

Acid  Phosphate.  Thirty-eight  samples  were  examined,  24  repre- 
senting the  16  per  cent  grade  and  the  remaining  14  samples  repre- 
senting the  14  per  cent  grade. 

The  samples  of  the  16  per  cent  grade  varied  from  15.07  to  17.80, 
with  an  average  of  16.41  per  cent  of  available  phosphoric  acid. 
The  other  samples  varied  from  12.51  to  17.24,  with  an  average  of 
14.49  per  cent  of  available  phosphoric  acid. 

Basic  Lime  Phosphate.  The  one  sample  received  satisfied  its 
guarantee  and  contained  13.27  per  cent  of  available  phosphoric  acid. 


8 


Bulletin  331 

NITRATE  OF  SODA 


Station  Number 

1 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

Nitrc 

■a 

c 

3 

O 

u. 

)GEN 

•o 

V 

V 

c 

03 

a 

3 

O 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

% 

% 

18751 

A.  P.  Wooley,  Matawan,  N.  T 

15.09 

15.00 

American  Fertilizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

18661 

George  Elvins,  Hammonton,  N.  J 

14.80 

14.82 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md.,  and  Chrome,  N.  J. 

18041 

J..  S.  Collins  & Son,  Inc.,  Moorestown,  N.  J 

15.34 

14.81 

18073 

J.  W.  Heal,  Beverly,  N.  J 

15.27 

14.81 

J.  H.  Baird  & Son,  Marlboro,  i\.  J. 

18825 

J.  H.  Baird  & Son,  Marlboro,  N.  T 

15.30 

14.82 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18289 

H.  Measley,  Elm,  N.  [ 

15.16 

Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18741 

Van  Mater  & Weigand  Trading  Co.,  Hazlet,  N.  T 

15.09 

15.00 

E.  Dougherty,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18776 

Albert  Haines,  Moorestown,  N.  J 

14.40 

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  & Chem.  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18491 

Palnighi  Bros,  Vineland,  N.  J 

15.31 

15.00 

Martin  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18255 

Charles  A.  Crowley,  Blue  Anchor,  N.  J 

15.23 

18685 

Baron  de  Hirsch  School,  Woodbine,  N.  J 

15.23 

14.80 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J. 

18103 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  T 

15.34 

14.80 

Nitrate  Agencies  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18620 

C.  Ronchetti,  Vineland,  N.  J 

15.09 

15.00 

18606 

W.  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  T 

15.31 

15.00 

llasin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

18445 

M.  Feinstein,  Bridgeton.  N.  J 

14.80 

14.82 

F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

18738 

Collins  Bros.,  Keanshurg,  N.  J 

15.27 

15.00 

I.  Serata  & Sons,  Bridgeton,  N.  'J. 

18319 

T.  Serata  & Sons,  Bridgeton,  N.  J 

15.16 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18428 

T.  J.  White,  Inc.,  New  Lisbon,  N.  J 

15.23 

15.21 

18756 

W.  Brown,  Freneau,  N.  J 

15.13 

15.21 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18132 

i T.  S.  Borden,  Beverly,  N.  J 

15.34 

15.58 

1 U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. 

18992 

1 J.  H.  Hankinson,  Glen  Moore,  N.  J 

15.45 

! West  Jersey  Marl  and  Trans.  Co.,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

18279 

1 J.  Cliver,  Gloucester,  N.  J 

15.34 

14.81 

j Xv'crfl^c  

15.16 

15  PER  CENT  NITRATE  OF  SODA 


F.  W.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18649 

J.  TI.  Lii)pincott,  Moorestown,  N.  J 

12.20 

12.34 

180139 

H.  W.  \’an  Artsdalen,  Titusville,  N.  J 

12.15 

12.34 

Average  

12.18 

Analyses  of  Fertilizers 
SULPHATE  OF  AMMONIA 


9 


Nitrogen 

Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

1 

1 Found 

Guaranteed 

18104 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.'  J. 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J 

% 

19.97 

1 

1 20.50 

DRIED  BLOOD 

Nitrogen 

Phosphoric 

Acid 

[station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

% 

% 

% 

% 

18694 

^Germania  Fruit  Growers  Union,  Germania,  N.  J 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J. 

10.18 

11.50 

5.40 

18106 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J.. 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

12.80 

12.75 

0.88 

18425 

J.  J.  White,  Inc.,  New  Lisbon,  N.  J 

Average  

12.76 

12.78 

12.30 

1.11 

1.00 

*Not  included  in  the  average.  Manufacturers  state  that  error  was  made  in  the  guarantee  at- 
tached. Sale  was  made  on  the  unit  basis  (9.83  per  cent  nitrogen). 


DRIED  AND  GROUND  FISH 


1 American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

1 

18081 

College  Farm,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J 

8.70  8.23 

8.06 

Nitrate  Agencies  Co.,  New  York  City. 

i 

18605 

W.  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  J 

8.24  [ 8.22 

6.20 

4.57 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18072 

J.  W.  Heal,  Beverly,  N.  J 

8.95  1 8.20 

1.35 

18129 

T.  S.  Borden,  Beverly,  N.  J 

9.12  8.20 

1.10 

Average  

8.75  ... 

4.18 

CRUDE  FISH 


1.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

180126 

T.  R.  Hunt,  Lambertville,  N.  J 

7.60 

5.75 

5.72 

3.00 

KING  CRAB 


A.  R.  Kohler,  Westville,  N.  J. 

1 

18330 

A.  R.  Kohler,  Westville,  N.  J 

9.90 

0.91 

Jos.  R.  Moore,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

18331 

J.  Carter,  Thorofare,  N.  J 

9.61 

1.03 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18556 

Robbins  Bros.,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

7.06 

8.22 

1.44 

Average  

8.86 

1.13 

10 


Bulletin  331 

FISH  AND  TANKAGE 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

Nitrogen 

Phosphoric 
. Acid 

Pound 

Guaranteed 

Pound 

Guaranteed 

18155 

18439 

Keystone  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

J.  E.  Chambers,  Riverton,  N.  J 

G.  H.  Wilson,  Paulsboro,  N.  J 

Average  

1 % 
2.80 

2.94 

2.87 

% 

3.28 

3.28 

% 

7.13 

7.02 

7.08 

% 

5.00 

! 5.00 



1 

TANKAGE 


.Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

Mechanical 

Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Phosphoric 

Acid 

h'iner  than 

1/50  inch 

Coarser  than 

1/50  inch 

T3 

C 

3 

O 

LL 

Guaranteed 

Pound 

Guaranteed 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Active  Chemical  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

18310 

*H.  P.  James,  Sewell,  N.  J 

72 

28 

i 1.6^ 

1.23 

2.63 

3.00 

18352 

•Active  Chemical  Co,  Camden,  N.  J 

73 

27 

1.71 

1.23 

2.58 

3.00 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18437 

G.  A.  Rode,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

54 

46 

4.30 

4.40 

18.51 

19.26 

18202 

J.  L.  Lippincott  & Co.,  Riverton,  N.  J.  . . 

45 

55 

6.74 

6.58 

11.60 

4.00 

18601 

W.  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  J 

50 

50 

6.50 

6.58 

12.59 

4.00 

18314 

A.  S.  Clark  & Son,  Pitman,  N.  J 

46 

54 

6.73 

5.80 

10.06 

3.00 

18413 

W.  Frederick,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

35 

65 

5.38 

5.80 

14.52 

3.00 

18557 

W.  E.  Ashcraft,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

29 

! 71 

1 5.38 

5.80 

15.14 

3.00 

18434 

G.  A.  Rode,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

48 

52 

6.75 

5.76 

11.64 

18495 

H.  L.  Sickel,  Vineland,  N.  T 

43 

57 

! 5.34 

5.76 

9.83 

3.50 

18603 

W.  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  J 

37 

63 

, 7.32 

8.59 

Beckett  & Beckett,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

18410 

W.  Davison,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

52 

48 

6.19 

5.76 

11.63 

10.00 

18571 

C.  M.  Lamson,  Repanpo,  N.  J 

45 

55 

i 5.27 

4.94 

8.69 

10.00 

The  Berg  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18229 

T.  Schleinkofer,  Atco,  N.  J 

44 

56 

i 4.98 

4.53 

9.89 

15.00 

D.  Fullerton  & Co.,  Paterson,  N.  J. 

1 

1S0130 

H.  J.  Appert  & Son,  Allendale,  N.  J 

i 7.03 

6.15 

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  and  Chemical  Co., 

1 

Newark,  N.  J. 

1 

1 

180095' 

L.  B.  Coddington,  Murray  Hill,  N.  J.... 

51 

49 

1 5.53 

4.94 

5.40 

12.00 

180169 

L.  W.  Smith,  Florham  Park,  N.  J 

65 

1 ^5 

i 7.20 

7.40 

12.08 

6.89 

•Material  was  misbranded.  Samples  contained  1.20  per  cent  of  nitrog-en  in  form  of  ammonia 
salti  and  the  organic  nitrogen  was  of  inferior  quality. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 
TANKAGE  — ( Continued ) 


11 


Mechanical 

Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Phosphoric 

Acid 

Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

Finer  than 

1/50  inch 

— 

Coarser  than 

1/50  inch 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

18S81 

Heritage  '&  Bro.,  Mullica  Hill,  N.  J. 

Heritage  & Bro.,  Mullica  Hill,  N.  J 

% 

42 

% 

58 

% 

4.41 

% 

4.90 

% 

19.46 

% 

12.00 

18233 

Locke  & Black,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

Mrs.  F.  H.  Brewer,  Blackwood,  N.  J 

51 

49 

6.39 

11.59 

18305 

J.  P.  Kincaid,  Sewell,  N.  J 

66 

34 

6.75 

12.06 

18411 

S.  Butler,  Swedesboro,  N.  T 

45 

55 

6.79 

6.38 

12.37 

18438 

S.  G.  Haines,  Mickleton,  N.  J 

50 

50 

4.93 

5.15 

11.74 

18252 

Martin  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Chas.  A.  Crowley,  Blue  Anchor,  N.  J.... 

46 

54 

6.84 

6.54 

8.41 

18416 

G.  A.  Rode,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

35 

65 

6.03 

6.54 

8.55 

18684 

Baron  de  llirsch  School,  Woodbine,  N.  J. 

46 

54 

6.52 

6.54 

7.05 

18415 

G.  A.  Rode,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

34 

66 

4.69 

4.94 

7.06 

180193 

Middlesex  Fertilizer  Co.,  Plainfield,  N.  J. 
Middlesex  Fert.  Co.,  Plainfield,  N.  J 

32 

68 

6.41 

8.20 

18105 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Free- 
hold, N.  J. 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange, 
Freehold,  N.  J 

48 

52 

8.03 

8.03 

7.75 

7.00 

18332 

Jos.  R.  Moore,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

J.  Carter,  Thorofare,  N.  J 

49 

51 

4.42 

4.53 

13.61 

15.00 

18374  1 

S.  M.  Cook,  Paulsboro,  N.  J 

40 

60 

4.78 

4.53 

10.80 

15.00 

i 

18747  ! 

N.  J.  Fertilizer  and  Chemical  Co.,  Jersey  City, 

X.  J. 

L.  D.  Roberts,  Keyport,  N.  J... 

58 

42 

5.71 

5.75 

7.24 

6.87 

18444 

Raisin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

M.  Feinstein,  Bridgeton,  N.  J 

53 

47 

4.08 

5.76 

23.46 

i 

18595 

Reading  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

J.  E.  Gaventa,  Pedricktown,  N.  J 

39 

61 

5.85 

5.75 

10.60 

9.00 

18334 

Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Elkton,  Md. 

L.  Leonard,  Thorofare,  N.  J 

48 

52 

3.03 

4.94 

19.49 

9.16 

1 

18339  i 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

A.  R.  Kohler,  Westville,  N.  J 

48 

52 

4.87 

4.90 

16.98 

12.00 

18363 

W.  Fink,  Mickleton,  N.  J 

40 

60 

4.81 

4.90 

17.84 

12.00 

18429  ' 

J.  J.  White,  Inc.,  New  Lisbon,  N.  J 

42 

58 

4.22 

4.90 

18.21 

13.00 

18130  ! 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

T.  S.  Borden,  Beverly,  N.  J 

57 

43 

6.39 

6.56 

12.76 

18591 

West  Jersey  Marl  & Trans.  Co.,  Woodbury, 

N.  J. 

J.  Dietrick,  Pedricktown,  N.  J 

53 

47 

5.09 

1 

4.94 

8.40 

3.00 

Average  

46  1 

54 

5.72 

' 1 

11.89 

12 


Bulletin  331 

16  PER  CENT  ACID  PHOSPHATE 


c 

o 


18660  I 


18021J1  i 

I 

18142  ! 
18459  I 
18602  ! 
180269  I 

! 

i 


18154 

180145 


ISOOli 

18253 

18665 

18682 

18082 

18447 

180158 

18615 

18551 

18793 

180221 

18698 

18774 

180121 

180025 

18714 


Phosphoric  Acid 


Available 


Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 
Place  of  Sampling 


American  Agr,  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

P.  A.  Myrick,  Hammonton,  N.  J 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md.,  and 
Chrome,  N.  J. 

Manning  Co.,  Sussex,  N.  J 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Hitchner  & Bassett,  Woodstown,  N.  J.... 

Quinton  Glass  Co.,  Quinton,  N.  J 

W.  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  J 

Belle  Mead  Farmers  Club,  Belle  Mead, 

N.  J 

Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

L.  Horner,  Palmyra,  N.  J 

Consumers  Chemical  Corporation,  N.  Y.  City. 

H.  W.  Van  Artsdalen,  Titusville,  N.  J . . . 
Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  and  Chem.  Co., 

Newark,  N.  J. 

A.  G.  Cole.  Three  Bridges,  N.  J 

Martin  Fertilizer  Co..  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Chas.  A.  Crowley,  Blue  Anchor,  N.  J.... 

Geo.  Elvins,  Hammonton,  N.  J 

Baron  de  Hirsch  School,  Woodbine,  N.  J. 
Nitrate  Agencies  Co.,  New  York  City. 

College  Farm,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J 

Rasin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

M.  Feinstein,  Bridgeton,  N.  J 

Reading  Chemical  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

E.  Crowell,  Blairstown,  N.  J 

F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

C.  Ronchetti,  Vineland,  N.  J 

Swift  & Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

I.  H.  Weatherby,  Swedesboro,  N.  J 

Swift  & Co.,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

Burlington  County  Farmers  Exchange, 
Mt.  Holly,  N.  J 

Armstrong  & Demarest,  Lafayette,  N.  J.. 
f.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

G.  Hanselman,  Germania,  N.  J 

Albert  Haines,  Moorestown,  N.  J 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Lambert  & Kerr,  Lambertville,  N.  J 

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

G.  F.  Hill  & Co.,  Gladstone,  N.  J 

Woodward  & Dickerson,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

N.  E.  Diament  & Son,  Cedarville,  N.  J... 

Average  


% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

15.20 

1.91 

0.63 

17.74 

17.11 

16.00 

13.66 

1.90 

0.52 

16.08 

15.56 

16.00 

15.22 

1.56 

0.68 

17.46 

16.78 

16.00 

15.94 

1.51 

0.26 

17.71 

17.45 

16.00 

13.68 

2.49 

0.46 

16.63 

16.17 

16.00 

14.48 

2.26 

0.15 

16.89 

16.74 

16.00 

14.40 

1.68 

0.67 

16.75 

16.08 

16.00 

14.00 

3.01 

0.30 

17.31 

17.01 

16.00 

15.14 

0.82 

0.10 

16.06 

15.96 

16.00 

15.24 

1.92 

0.91 

18.07 

17.16 

16.00 

10.74 

4.99 

2.01 

17.78 

15.73 

16.00 

14.04 

2.24 

1.69 

17.97 

16.28 

16.00 

13.58 

2.14 

0.62 

16.34 

15.72 

16.00 

14.00 

2.63 

0.73 

17.36 

16.63 

16.00 

14.18 

2.82 

1.51 

18.51 

17.00 

16.00 

14.60 

2.41 

0.72 

17.73 

17.01 

16.00 

11.98 

3.98 

1.07 

17.03 

15.96 

16.00 

12.52 

2.55 

0.52 

15.59 

15.07 

16.00 

12.22 

2.93 

1.06 

16.21 

15.15 

16.00 

13.40 

1.85 

1.64 

16.89 

15.25 

16.00 

11.60 

4.21 

1.33 

17.14 

15.81 

16.00 

15.58 

2.22 

0.37 

18.17 

17.80 

16.00 

14.00 

2.77 

0.42 

17.19 

16.77 

16.00 

14.52 

2.47 

0.34 

17.33 

16.99 

16.41 

16.00 

Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

14  PER  CENT  ACID  PHOSPHATE 


13 


Phosphoric  Acid 

Available 

Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Dealer  and 

Place  of  Sampling 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Pound 

Guaranteed 

American  Agr.  Chemical  Co,,  New  York  City. 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

1822» 

J.  Price,  Chews  Landing,  N.  J 

12.06 

2.40 

0.53 

14.99 

14.46 

14.00 

18297 

S.  Smedley  & Son,  Glassboro,  N.  J 

10.30 

4.09 

0.55 

14.94 

14.39 

14.00 

180101 

S.  S.  Baldwin,  Murray  Hill,  N.  J 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

9.70 

4.26 

1.80 

15.76 

13.96 

14.00 

18036 

F.  B.  King,  Mt.  Holly,  N.  J 

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  & Chem.  Co.,  New- 
ark, N.  J. 

12.80 

2.61 

0.51 

15.92 

15.41 

14.00 

18007;‘ 

J.  W.  Snyder,  Pittstown,  N.  J 

S.  M.  Hess  & Bro.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

12.40 

1.55 

0.78 

14.73 

13.95 

14.00 

1899(< 

A.  S.  Golden,  Hopewell,  N.  J 

Listers  Agricultural  Chemical  Works,  Newark, 

N.  J. 

10.98 

4.15 

0.75 

15.88 

15.13 

14.00 

18009;< 

A.  D.  Sutton,  Califon,  N.  J 

Albert  Nelson,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

11.00 

3.18 

0.67 

14.85 

14.18 

14.00 

18918 

Albert  Nelson,  Nelsonville,  N.  J 

Ellwood  Roberts  Co,,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

11.36 

1.15 

0.85 

13.36 

12.51 

14.00 

18635 

Ellwood  Roberts  Co.,  Winslow  Jet.,  N.  J. 
F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md.  * 

15.82 

1.42 

0.36 

17.60 

17.24 

14.00 

180081 

E.  N.  Strong,  Ringoes,  N.  J 

Swift  & Co.,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

10.28 

4.11 

1.22 

15.61 

14.39 

14.00 

18979 

J.  T.  Van  Nest,  Martinsville,  N.  J 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

10.60 

3.21 

0.42 

14.23 

13.81 

14.00 

I 

180067 

J.  H,  Hann,  Barbertown,  N.  J 

J.  E.  Tygert  Co,,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

9.94 

3.90 

1.09 

14.93 

13.84 

14.00 

18707 

T.  I.  Grant,  Toms  River,  N.  J 

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 

11.52 

3.30 

0.77 

15.59 

14.82 

1 

14.00 

18088 

College  Farm,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J 

Average  

11.30 

3.52 

0.73 

15.55 

14.82 

14.49 

14.00 

BASIC  LIME  PHOSPHATE 


American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New 

York  City. 

180083 

F.  Welch,  Potterstown,  N.  J 

0.70 

12.57 

1.88 

15.15 

13.27 

14 


Bulletin  331 

The  Examination  of  Home  Mixtures 


Five  samples  of  home  mixtures  were  examined,  and  the  results 
are  tabulated  on  the  following  pages.  The  formulas  used  in  pre- 
paring these  mixtures  are : 


No.  180129 

1000  lbs.  Acid  Phosphate 
1000  lbs.  Tankage 

No.  18715 

200  lbs.  Acid  Phosphate 
50  lbs.  Nitrate  of  Soda 
50  lbs.  Cottonseed  Meal 

No.  180128 

500  lbs.  Acid  Phosphate 
200  Ihs.  Ground  Bone 


■ No.  180083 
2000  lbs.  Acid  Phosphate 
800  lbs.  Hen  Manure 


No.  18657 

200  lbs.  Nitrate  of  Soda 
200  lbs.  Dried  Blood 
300  lbs.  Tankage 
200  lbs.  Ground  Bone 
1100  lbs.  Acid  Phosphate 


HOME  MIXTURES 


S 

3 


c 

o 


C/J 


180129 

18715 

180128 

180083 

18657 


H.  J.  Appert  & Son  . 
N.  E.  Diament  & Son 

T.  R.  Hunt  

E.  N.  Strong  

A.  S.  Walton  


Prepared  By 


Address 


Allendale  . . 
Cedarville  . , 
Lamhertville 
Ringoes  . . . 
Moorestown 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 


15 


HOME  MIXTURES 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

\s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Aval 

•o 

c 

s 

o 

CL 

Guaranteed  S 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Tr. 

0.11 

0.39 

2.90 

3.40 

1 

] 5.78 

2.35 

4.57 

I 12.70 

8.13 

2.15 

0.01 

0.22 

0.77 

.3  15 

i 

1 

I 10.78 

1.26 

i 0.27 

12.31 

12.04 

Tr. 

0.02 

0.26 

0.38 

0.66  1 

5.88 

6.29 

6.30  ! 

18.47 

12.17 

0.19 

0.01 

0.11 

0.48 

0.79 

1 5.46 

4.45 

0.62 

10.53 

9.91 

0.40 

2.17 

0.06 

0.28 

1.68 

4.19 

! 

’ 5.98 

3.34  ' 

3.48 

12.80 

9.32 

16  Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTIIilZERS 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  and  Brand 

Where  Sam  feed 

18256 

Acme  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Potato  Climax  No,  2 

Blackwood  

18244 

* Potato  Climax  No.  2 

Blackwood  

18359 

Active  Chemical  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

Semper  Peerless  

Camden  

18197 

Semper  Excello  

Camden  

18150 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Sampson  Potato  and  Truck  Manure  

Riverton  

18220 

* Sampson  Potato  and  Truck  Manure  

Elmer  

18225 

Superior  Fish  Guano  for  Broadcasting  

Laurel  Springs  .... 

18221 

* Matchless  Potash  Manure  

Glassboro  

18850 

18935 

j All  Crop  Fish  Giiann  

Hightstnwn  .... 

Odorless  Grass  and  Lawn  Top  Dressing,  Revised 

New  Brunswick  . . . 

180213 

j Bradley’s  New  Method  Fertilizer,  1916  

Roselle  

180174 

Bradley’s  Potato  Manure,  1916  

Florham  Park  

18941 

Crocker’s  Universal  Grain  Grower,  1916  

Millstone  

180135 

Crocker’s  Harvest  Jewel  Fertilizer,  1916  

Paterson  

18566 

East  India  Black  Hawk  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer 

Princeton  Junction. 

18735 

East  India  Corn  King,  1916  

Red  Bank  

180105 

East  India  Unexcelled  Fertilizer,  1916  

Millington  

180103 

East  India  Economizer  Phosphate,  1916  

Millington  

180104 

East  India  Potato  and  Garden  Manure  

Millington  

180029 

Great  Eastern  General,  1916  

Bernardsville  

18956 

Milsom’s  Potato,  Hop  and  Tobacco  Fertilizer,  1916 

Bound  Brook  

18957 

Milsom’s  Wheat,  Oats  and  Barley,  1916  

Bound  Brook  

180148 

Northwestern  Shawnee  Phosphate,  1916  

Titusville  

180147 

Northwestern  Diamond  Potash  Mixture,  1916  

Titusville  

180149 

Northwestern  Complete  Compound,  1916  

Titusville  

18983 

Packers  Union  Potato  Manure,  1916  

Hopewell  

18984 

Packers  Union  .Superior  Crop  Grower,  1916  

Hopewell  

18985 

Packers  Union  Universal  Fertilizer,  1916  

Hopewell  

18703 

Read’s  Farmers’  Friend  Superphosphate,  1916  

Pomerania  

18704 

Read’s  Vegetable  and  Vine  Fertilizer,  1916  

Pomerania  

180016 

Read’s  Leader  Fertilizer  

Three  Bridges  .... 

18431 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Complete  Manure,  1916  

Thorofare  

18432 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Fish  Guano,  1916  

Thorofare  

18613 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Vegetable  and  Potato  Manure 

Vineland  

18912 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Soluble  Tampico  Guano,  1916  

Robbinsville  

18222 

Tygert- Allen’s  Reliable  Crop  Grower,  1916  

Glassboro  ^ . 

18224 

Allen’s  Sweet  Potato  Manure,  1916  

Blackwood  

18298 

Allen’s  Potato  and  Truck  Manure,  1916  

Glassboro  

Duplicate  samjjle. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

CO>Il\IEKCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


17 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

i 

Potash 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Avail 

T3 

c 

3 

O 

CL 

Si 

Guaranteed  — 

Found 

1 Guaranteed 

' 1 

2.64 

0.05 

0.09 

>0.15 

2.93 

3.28 

0.70 

6.91 

0.76 

8.37 

! 9.00 

7.61 

8.00 

1.78 

1 

2.00 

2.58 

0.01 

0.01 

>0.19 

2.79 

3.28 

Tr. 

6.15 

1.84 

7.99 

! 9.00 

6.15 

8.00 

2.29 

2.00 

0.51 

0.19 

0.03 

0.12 

0.85 

0.82 

6.34 

3.57 

0.65 

10.56 

11.00 

9.91 

10.00 

1.34 

1.00 

0.91 

0.51 

0.02 

0.19 

1.63 

1.64 

7A.\ 

3.00 

0.60 

10.72 

11.00 

10.12 

10.00 

1.44 

1.00 

0.87 

0.93 

0.51 

0.48 

2.79 

3.29 

4.1)1 

4.59 

1.16 

9.93 

9.00 

8.77 

8.00 

2.76 

1 

3.00 

1.33 

1.15 

■ 0.20 

0.43 

3.11 

3.29 

2.94 

5.11 

1.51 

9.56 

9.00 

8.05 

8.00 

*2.90 

3.00 

0.91 

0.98 

0.21 

0.52 

2.62 

3.29 

1.60 

3.56 

1.04 

1 6.20 

6.00 

5.16 

5.00 

1.25 

1.00 

0.28 

0.55 

0.35 

0.34 

1.52 

1.65 

2.76 

5.38 

1.30 

1 9.44 

1 9.00 

8.14 

8.00 

2.06 

2.00 

0.14 

0.53 

0.50 

1.17 

1.23 

6.:  6 

4.55 

1.29 

! 12.60 

1 11.00 

11.31 

10.00 

1.07 

1.00 

2.50 

0.18 

0.70 

3.38 

3.91 

4.18 

2.06 

0.59 

! 6.83 

6.00 

6.24 

5.00 

1.64 

1.00 

0.05 

0.13 

0.62 

0.80 

0.82 

4.94 

3.92 

' 1.37 

10.23 

9.00 

8.86 

8.00 

*1.13 

1.00 

0.81 

0.47 : 

0.49  ! 

0.55 

2.32 

2.47 

5.26 

3.58 

2.78 

11.62 

10.00 

8.84 

.9.00 

1.27 

1.00 

0.15 

0.07  1 

0.13 

0.45 

0.80 

0.82 

3.94 

4.67 

1.09 

9.70 

9.00 

8.61 

8.00 

*1.10 

1.00 

0.73 

0.05  I 

0.21  j 

0.57 

1.56 

1.65 

7.40 

1.78 

1.54 

10.72 

10.00 

9.18 

9.00 

*1.07 

1.00 

1.55 

0.30 

0.21  i 

1.07 

3.13 

3.29 

5.30 

3.15 

1.68 

10.13 

9.00 

8.45 

8.00 

3.20 

3.00 

1.30 

0.38 

0.07  I 

0.61 

2.36 

2.47 

7.54 

1.63 

i 1.70 

10.87 

10.00 

9.17 

9.00 

*1.12 

1.00 

0.31 

0.43  I 

0.29 

0.78 

1.81 

2.06 

2.84 

5.07 

! 1.76 

9.67 

9.00 

7.91 

8.00 

*0.96 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.30 

0.21 

0.43 

0.94 

0.82 

5.10 

2.97 

1.18 

9.25 

9.00 

8.07 

8.00 

1.22  ! 

1.00 

1.54 

0.61 

0.42 

0.61 

3.18 

3.29 

6.74 

2.41 

1.72 

10.87 

10.00 

9.15 

9.00 

1.51  j 

1.00 

0.16 

0.08 

0.12 

0.32 

0.68 

0.82 

4.82 

4.31 

1.18 

10.31 

9.00 

9.13 

8.00 

*0.86 

1.00 

0.78 

0.15 

0.41 

0.67 

2.01 

2.06 

7.20 

3.05 

1.53 

11.78 

11.00 

10.25 

10.00 

1.32 

1.00 

0.03 

0.11 

0.59 

0.73 

0.82 

4.34 

3.54 

1.53 

9.41 

9.00 

7.88 

8.00 

1.22 

1.00 

0.64 

0.40 

0.05 

0.70 

1.79 

1.65 

5.56 

4.52 

1.92  ! 

12.00 

10.00 

10.08 

9.00 

*1.74 

1.06 

0.31 

0.33 

0.17 

0.69 

1.50 

1.65 

6.14 

3.63 

1.61 

11.38  I 

11.00 

9.77 

! 10.00 

*1.50 

1.00 

0.14 

0.10 

0.16 

0.52 

0.92 

0.82 

4.80 

3.44 

1.11 

9.35 

9.00 

8.24 

i 8.00 

*1.49 

1.00 

0.78 

0.17 

0.39  I 

0.71 

2.05 

2.06 

7.24 

2.95 

1.55 

11.74 

11.00 

10.19 

1 10.00 

1.29 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.08  * 

0.24  1 

0.34 

0.66 

0.82 

7.20 

2.97 

0.99 

11.16 

11.00 

10.17 

1 10.00 

1.18 

LOG 

0.04 

0.13 

0.66 

0.83 

0.82 

5.16 

3.28 

1.42  ' 

9.86 

9.00 

8.44 

8.00 

1.18 

1.00 

0.74 

0.78 

0.12  1 

0.39 

2.03 

2.06 

4.82 

2.89 

2.13  i 

9.84  i 

9.00 

7.71 

8.00 

*1.55 

1.00 

1.08 

0.99 

0.17 

0.40 

2.64 

2.47 

5.00 

4.39 

1.59 

10.98  i 

10.00 

9.39 

9.00 

*1.47 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.24  ' 

0.18  i 

0.50 

0.92 

0.82 

4.46 

3.76 

1.86 

p 

b 

00 

9.00 

8.22 

8.00 

*1.46 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.76  1 

0.52 

0.48 

1.76 

1.65 

4.86 

5.46 

1.77  ’ 

12.09  1 

11.00 

10.32  1 

10.00 

*1.34 

1.00 

Tr. 

1.02  j 

0.37 

0.58 

1.97 

2.06  i 

5.02 

2.58 

2.02 

9.62  i 

9.00 

7.60  i 

8.00 

*1.11 

i.oe 

1.06 

0.87 

0.20  i 

0.25 

2.38 

2.47 

6.30 

2.78 

1.71 

10.79  , 

10.00  P 9.08  1 

9.00 

*1.02 

1.00 

1.58 

0.57 

0.37 

0.60 

3.12 

3.29 

6.58 

2.54 

1.80  ! 

10.92 

10.00 

9.12  I 

9.00 

*1.26 

1.00 

0.16 

0.57 

0.37 

0.57 

1.67 

1.65 

4.48 

5.42 

1.94 

11.84 : 

11.00 

9.90 

10.00 

1.22 

1.00 

0.85 

0.61  ! 

0.18  1 

0.51 

2.15 

2.06 

4.86 

4.43 

1.45 

10.79  ; 

11.00  1 

9.34 

10.00 

*1.09 

1.00 

0.71 

0.86 

0.28 

0.54 

2.39 

2.47 

4.98 

3.99 

1.44 

10.41  ^ 

10.00  [ 

1 8.97 

9.00 

1.23  ' 

1.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 
^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


18 


Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Sampled 


18673  ; 

18348  j 

18349  ! 
180255 

18261 

18420 

18422 

18148 

18149 
18111 
18692 

180219 

180243 

18804 
18054  I 
18786  j 

18005  j 
18388  ! 
18590  ! 
18461  j 
18312  ; 
18209 
18713  I 
180183 

18288 

18284 

180178 

18750 

18139 

18986 

180058 

180059 

180208 


American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City — (Continued) 

Wheeler’s  Potato  Manure,  1916  : 

Wheeler’s  Corn  Fertilizer,  1916  

Wheeler’s  Reliable  Manure,  1916  

Williams  & Clark’s  Special  Prolific  Crop  Producer  

American  Fertilizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

American  Potato  and  Truck  Guano  

American  Eagle  Crop  Grower  - 

American  Fish  and  Potash  Compound  

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md.,  and  Chrome,  N.  J. 

Armour’s  4-8-3  

Armour’s  Wheat,  Corn  and  Oats  Special  

Armour’s  4-8-2  

Sterling  Potato,  1918  I 

Armour’s  Crop  Grower  

Tuscarora  Standard  

Baltimore  Pulverizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Special  Potato  Mixture  

*Special  Potato  Mixture  i 

Pennimans  Special  Guano  

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Baugh’s  White  Potato  Special  

* Baugh’s  White  Potato  Special  

Baugh’s  Durable  Plant  Food  

Baugh’s  Double  Eagle  Phosphate  

Baugh’s  General  Crop  Grower  for  all  Crops  

Baugh’s  Potato  and  Truck  Special  for  all  Truck  Crops  

Baugh’s  High  Grade  Potato  Grower  

Baugh’s  Special  Potato  Manure 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Stockbridge  Complete  

Bowker’s  Standard  Phosphate  

Bowker’s  Complete  

Bowker’s  Hill  and  Drill  Phosphate,  1916  

Stockbridge  General  Crop  Manure,  1916  

Bowker’s  Lawn  and  Garden  Dressing,  1918  

Bowker’s  Farm  and  Garden  Phosphate,  1916  

Bowker’s  Sure  Crop  Phosphate,  1916  

Bowker’s  Corn  Pho.sphate  


Cape  May  

Williamstown  

Williamstown  

W.  Hoboken  

Elmer  

Westville  

Westville  

Riverton  

Palmyra  

Englishtown  

Tuckahoe  

Sussex  

Caldwell  

Medford  

Mt.  Holly  

Mt.  Holly  

Cranbury  

Jamesburg  

Mullica  Hill  

Quinton  

Pitman  

Camden  

Barnegat  

Stockton  

Elm  

Elm  

Stockton  

Matawan  

Daretown  

Trenton  

Lebanon  

Lebanon  

Union  


Duj)licate  sample. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 
COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


19 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

.'\s  Nitrates 

.\s  Ammonia  Salts 

Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

.\s  Insoluble  Organic  1 

Matter  | 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Available 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

0.71 

0.57 

0.22 

0.54 

2.04 

2.06 

4.58 

4.95 

1.55 

1 

11.08 

1 11.00 

9.53 

10.00 

1.22 

1.00 

0.26 

0.61 

0.20 

0.45 

1.52 

1.65- 

3.40 

5.68 

1.70 

10.78 

11.00 

9.08 

10'.  00 

1.07 

1.00 

1.73 

0.05 

0.17 

0.33 

2.28 

2.47 

4.68 

4.92 

1.83 

11.43 

1 10.00 

9.60 

9.00 

1.30 

1.00 

0.03 

0.23 

0.46 

0.72 

0.82 

5.12 

3.26 

1.15 

9.53 

i 9.00 

8.38 

8.00 

1.11 

1.00 

2.70 

0.05 

0.24 

^0.40 

3.39 

3.29 

6.00 

2.22 

1.03 

9.25 

i 9.00 

8.22 

8.00 

M.87 

2.00 

0.30 

0.47 

2 0.86 

1.63 

1.65 

1.90 

5.28 

i 2.08 

9.26 

9.00 

7.18 

8.00 

*2.32 

2.00 

0.18 

0.60 

0.91 

1.69 

1.65 

1.84 

6.07 

' 2.52 

1 

10.43 

9.00 

7.91 

8.00 

2.98 

i! 

3.00 

i 1.65 

i 0.72 

2 0.80 

3.17 

3.29 

4.56 

3.52 

1 

1.82 

9.90 

. 8.50 

8.08 

8.00 

. 2.97 

' 3.00 

0.14 

0.14 

; 0.11 

2 0.31 

0.70 

0.82 

4.52 

3.03 

0.45 

! 8.00 

7.50 

7.55 

7.00 

;;  M.31 

1.00 

0.31 

; 0.68 

1.72 

2.71 

! 3.29 

2.76 

4.39 

3.69 

10.84 

: 8.50 

7.15 

8.00 

2.18 

2.00 

1 0.16 

0.35 

0.44 

0.95 

0.82 

4.46 

3.19 

1.46 

9.11 

7.50 

7.65 

7.00 

0.96 

; 1.00 

0.49 

0.21 

0.37 

, 1.07 

: 0.82 

3.32 

4.81  . 

1.03 

9.16 

8.50 

8.13 

8.00 

2.01 

1 2.00 

0.22 

0.61 

0.10 

-'0.70 

1.63 

1.65 

4.44 

4.33 

2.14 

10.91 

8.50 

8.77 

8.00 

2.20 

' 2.00 

1.45 

0.01 

0.11 

30.19 

1.76 

1.64 

1.66 

5.96 

1 1.04 

8.66 

8.00 

7.62 

7.00 

1.45 

1 1.00 

1.59  , 

0.02 

0.08 

0.19 

1.88 

! 1.64 

0.22 

' 4.64 

1.21 

607 

8.00 

4.86 

7.00 

1.19 

1.00 

1.12 

0.01 

0.08 

0.13 

1.34 

0.82 

0.38 

6.05 

1.30 

1 7.73 

9.00 

6.43 

8.00 

1.41 

1.00 

0.30 

1.96 

0.45 

0.47 

3.18 

i 3.30 

6.16 

2.63 

1.97 

: 10.76 

8.00 

8.79 

8.00 

2.63 

' 3.00 

0.96 

1.65 

0.07 

0.57 

3.25 

3.30 

5.76 

3.02 

1 1.84 

1 10.62 

8.00 

8.78 

8.00 

2.80 

! 3.00 

Tr. 

0.63 

' 0.59 

0.54 

1.76 

1.65  1 

6.90 

1.36 

1.52 

9.78 

; 8.00 

8.26 

8.00 

1.53 

2.00 

1.04 

0.23 

iO.50 

1.77 

1.65 

7.18 

2.47 

1.70 

11.35 

8.50 

9.65 

8.50 

*0.85 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.10 

0.29 

2 0.43 

0.82 

0.82 

5.38 

2.79 

1.60 

9.77 

8.00 

8.17 

8.00 

*0.80 

1.00 

2.11 

0.07 

0.24 

20.41 

2.83 

2.88 

7.40 

2.89 

1.57 

11.86 

10.00 

10.29 

10.00 

*1.44 

1.00 

2.44 

! 0.29 

0.62 

! 3.35 

3.30 

8.12 

i 1.61 

1.21 

10.94 

8.00 

9.73 

8.00 

1.09 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.60 

1 0.41 

2 0.49 

1.50 

1.65 

7.92 

1.78 

1.38 

11.08 

10.00 

9.70 

10.00 

*1.18 

1.00 

0.71 

1.60 

0.06 

0.41 

1 

2.78 

4.11 

6.10 

1 4.64 

1.28 

12.02 

11.00 

10.74 

10.00 

3.19 

4.00 

0.45 

0.51 

1 0.27 

0.35 

1.58 

1.65 

3.00 

4.80 

1.46 

9.26 

9.00 

7.80 

8.00 

1.58 

2.00 

1.01 

0.82 

1 0.31 

0.76 

2.90 

3.29 

7.44 

3.71 

1.01 

12.16 

11.00 

11.15 

10.00 

2.36 

3.00 

0.93 

0.57 

0.37 

0.57 

2.44 

2.47 

6.12 

3.19 

1.30 

10.61 

10.00 

9.31 

9.00 

1.34 

1.00 

0.92 

1.17 

0.50 

0.44 

3.03 

3.29 

4.02 

5.47 

1.55 

11.04 

10.00 

9.49 

9.00 

1,12 

1.00 

0.80 

0.66 

0.36 

0.59 

2.41 

2.47 

6.48 

2.71 

1.03 

10.22 

9.00 

9.19 

8.00 

1.20 

1.00 

0.52 

0.09 

i 0.32 

0.57 

1.50 

1.65 

7.04 

3.17 

1.64 

11.85 

11.00 

10.21 

10.00 

1.26 

1.00 

0.16 

0.13 

! 0.11 

0.36 

0.76 

0.82 

7.06 

2.94 

2.05 

12.05 

11.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.18  1 

1.00 

0.82 

0.06 

0.28 

0.54 

1.70 

1.65 

6.30 

4.02 

1.25 

11.57 

11.00 

10.32 

10.00 

1.24 

1.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  The  excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 
the  amount  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  The  excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  the 

amount  of  inferior  quality. 


20 


Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


k. 

e 

p 

c 

o 


cr 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Sampled 


18027 

18135 

18632 

18576 

180226 

18283 

18966 

180007 

180227 

18790 

18841 

18028 

18184 

18010 

180237 

1886*3 
18864  i 
18820  j 
180071 
180167 
180196 
180199 
180202 

18138 

18213 

18215 

18390  j 

1858'/  i 


E.  D.  Cliittendon,  Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Chittenden’s  Potato  .Special  with  3%  Potash  

Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  H.  G.  Potato  Fertilizer,  Revised  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  General  Crop  Manure,  Revised  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Empire  State  Brand,  Revised  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Red  Brand  Excelsior  Guano,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Standard  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Universal  Fertilizer,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  New  Englander  Special,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Gold  Brand  Excelsior  Guano,  1916 

Columbia  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Columbia  Soluble  Guano  

Columbia  Clarion  Guano  

Consumers  Chemical  Corporation,  New  York  City. 

Consumers  Pure-Sure  Potato  and  Vegetable  with  3%  Potash... 
Fogg  & Hires  Co.,  Salem,  N.  J. 

Wonder  Brand,  1917  

Forman  & Dilatush,  Dayton,  N.  J. 

Forman  & Dilatush’s  Special  Potato  Manure  

Alex.  Forbes  & Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Perfection  Lawn  Dressing — War  Brand  

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  & Chem.  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Godfrey’s  Potato  Manure,  Revised  

^Godfrey’s  Potato  Manure,  Revised  

Godfrey’s  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer  

Godfrey’s  Spec.  Grain  and  Sure  Crop  Fertilizer,  Revised 

Godfrey’s  Celery  and  Onion  Grower,  Revised  

Godfrey’s  Velvet  Lawn  Dressing,  Revised  

Godfrey’s  General  Crop  and  Corn  Fertilizer,  Revised  

Godfrey’s  Premium  Potato  Manure,  1917  

Thos.  Y.  Hackett,  Daretown,  N.  J. 

Hackett’s  Special  Fertilizer  

Hackett’s  Superior  Potato  Grower  

Hackett’s  Special  Phosphate  

Hendrickson  & Dilatush,  Robbinsville,  N.  J. 

High  Grade  Potato  Manure,  No.  2 

Heritage  & Bro.,  Mullica,  Hill,  N.  J. 

Pancoast’s  Royal  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture  


Cr anbury  . . 

Daretown  . . 
Grenloch  . . . 
Repaupo  . . . 
Elizabeth  . . 

Elm  

Pennington 
Skillman  . . . 
Elizabeth  . . 

Lewistown  . 
Englishtown 

Cranbury  . . 

Salem  

Cranbury  . . 

Newark  . . . . 

Jamesburg  . 
Jamesburg  . 
Freehold  . . . 
Pittstown  . . 
Madison  . . . 
Plainfield  . . 
Boonton  . . . 
Boonton  . . . 

Daretown  . . 

lilmer  

Monroeville 

Jamesburg  . 

Mullica  Hill 


Duplicate  sample. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


21 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

\s  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

1 Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Found  < 

6> 

Guaranteed  2 

<6 



Found 

Guaranteed 

1.74 

0.14 

1.24 

3.12 

3.30 

2.72 

6.29 

1 

1.64 

10.65 

1 

i 

9.00 

9.01 

8.00 

*2.45 

3.00 

1.52 

1.16 

0.26 

0.36 

3.10 

3.29 

5.26 

4.95 

1.18 

11.39 

11.00 

10.21 

10.00 

*2.91 

3.00 

0.38 

0.30 

0.12 

0.20 

1.00 

0.82 

5.46 

3.29 

0.73 

9.48 

9.00 

8.75 

8.00 

*1.82 

2.00 

0.43 

0.57 

0.22 

0.32 

1.54 

1.65 

2.64 

5.38 

1.18 

9.20 

9.00 

8.02 

8.00 

*1.83 

2.00 

1.16 

1.56 

0.36 

0.84 

3.92 

4.11 

4.46 

3.96 

1.71 

10.13 

9.00 

8.42 

8.00 

*1.04 

1.00 

1.18 

0.98 

0.34 

0.44 

2.94 

3.29 

2.68 

6.87 

1.38 

10.93 

10.00 

9.55 

9.00 

1.07 

1.00 

0.40 

0.28 

0.21 

0.59 

1.48 

1.65 

6.32 

3.33 

1.47 

11.12 

10.00 

9.65 

9.00 

*1.12 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.17 

0.15 

0.36 

: 0.68 : 

0.82 

4.50 

3.22 

1.08 

8.80 

9.00 

7.72 

8.00 

1.04 

1.00 

0.93 

0.58  1 

0.30 

0.48 

2.29 

2.47 

7.20 

2.32 

1.75 

11.37 

10.00 

9.62 

9.00 

1.31 

1.00 

0.29  i 

0.69 

0.08 

0.55 

1.61 

1.65 

2.64 

5.02 

2.19 

9.85 

8.50 

7.66 

8.00 

*1.86 

2.00 

0.26 

1.41 

0.53 

1.15 

3.35 

3.29 

4.24 

4.06 

1.77 

10.07 

8.50 

8.30 

8.00 

*2.73 

3.00 

....  j 

1.57  j 

0.59 

1.39 

3.55 

3.29 

2.60 

4.39 

3.40 

10.39 

9.00 

6.99 

8.00 

*3.25 

3.00 

2.45 

a38 

0.13 

'0.38 

3.34 

3.29 

3.72 

4.51 

1.65 

9.88 

8.00 

8.23 

8.00 

*3.30 

3.00 

2.02 

0.52 

10.77 

3.31 

3.29 

3.94 

3.31 

2.45 

9.70 

8.50 

7.25 

8.00 

3.09 

3.00 

1.67 

0.01  j 

0.07 

0.68 

2.43 

2.47 

2.42 

4.70 

5.22 

12.34 

10.00 

7.12 

8.00 

0.98 

1.00 

Tr.  : 

1.76 

0.22 

0.98 

2.96 

3.29 

4.64 

4.02 

0.62 

9.28 

9.50 

8.66 

9.00 

1.79 

2.00 

1.84  1 

0.06 

0.02  ; 

1.23 

3.15 

3.29 

6.72 

2.72 

1.39  ’ 

10.83 

9.50 

9.44 

9.00 

2.14 

2.00 

1.78  j 

0.11  , 

0.39 

0.81 

3.09 

3.29 

7.00 

2.15 

1.77 

10.92 

8.50 

9.15 

8.00 

*2.86 

3.00 

0.55  i 

0.09 

0.55 

1.19 

0.82 

1.96 

6.09 

1.21  ; 

9.26 

8.50 

8.05 

8.00 

*1.30 

2.00 

— 

0.72  1 

0.17 

^2  0.63 

1.52 

1.65 

2.66 

5.48 

1.77  : 

9.91 

8.50 

8.14 

8.00 

*3.16 

3.00 

1.10 

0.29 

0.89 

2.28 

2.47 

5.32 

2.57 

1.05  ! 

8.94 

8.50 

7.89 

8.00 

*1.32 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.53 

0.13 

0.88 

1.54 

1.65 

8.32 

2.56 

1.49  j 

12.37 

11.50 

10.88 

11.00 

1.72 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.43  ' 

0.66 

2.18 

3.27 

3.29 

3.24 

4.31 

3.52 

11.07 

8.50 

7.55 

8.00 

2.70 

2.00 

2.39 

1 

1.03  * 

0.08 

0.09 

3.59 

3.28 

6.32 

3.11 

0.90 

10.33 

9.00 

9.43 

8.00 

*2.67 

3.00 

3.37 

0.05  I 

0.26 

‘0.55 

4.23 

4.12 

6.10 

2.12 

i.o:j 

9.24 

9.00 

8.22 

8.00 

*3.45 

3.00 

2.66 

0.05 

1 

0.20 

‘0.59 

3.50 

3.29 

4.82 

3.87 

0.96  1 

9.65 

9.00 

8.69 

8.00 

*3.14 

3.00 

0.95 

1.15 

0.43 

0.99 

3.52 

3.29 

4.16 

5.25 

1.94 

i 

11.35 

11.00 

9.41 

9.00 

*3.05 

3.00 

0.60  : 

0.18 

0.89 

1.67 

1.65 

1.64 

6.50 

1 

2.34 

1 

10.48  I 

9.00 

8.14 

8.00 

*3.45 

3.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  The  excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 
amount  of  inferior  quality. 

® Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


22 


Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


e 

3 

C 

O 


18475 

18476 
18988 

18259 

18025 

180085 

18321 

18765 

18927 

18928 

18929 
18945 
18975 

180253 

18732 

180146 

180242 

180240 

180241 

18523 

18175 

180249 

18471 

18696 

180026 

18663 

18664 

18060 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


S.  M.  Hess  & Bro.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Fish  and  Potash  Manure,  1916  

Potato  Manure,  1916  

Keystone  Phosphate  

International  Seed  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

International  Special  Manure  

Keystone  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1918  Keystone  Supreme  Potato  and  Truck  Manure  . 

Keystone  Grain  and  Grass  Manure  

Wm.  Lancaster,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1918  Grange  A Brand  Potato  Manure  

*1918  Grange  A Brand  Potato  Manure  

Listers  Agricultural  Chemical  Works,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Listers  Corn  and  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916  

Listers  4-8-3  

Listers  Perfect  Potato  Manure,  1916  

Listers  U.  S.  Superphosphate,  1916  

Listers  Special  Crop  Producer,  1916  

Listers  Success  Fertilizer,  1916  

Listers  Standard  Pure  Superphosphate  of  Lime,  1916 

Listers  Valley  Brand  Fertilizer,  1916  

Listers  Vegetable  Compound,  1916  

Listers  Lawn  Fertilizer,  1916  

Listers  Potato  Manure,  1916  

Locke  and  Black,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

Atkinson’s  No.  4 Spec.  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer 

Atkinson’s  No.  1^^  .Spec.  White  Potato  Fertilizer  ... 
Frederick  Ludlam  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Ludlam’s  General  Fertilizer  

Mapes  Formula  & Peruvian  Guano  Co.,  New'  York  City. 

Mapes’  Potato  Manure,  1916  Brand  

Mapes’  Top  Dresser,  Full  Strength,  1916  Brand 

Mapes’  Corn  Manure,  1916  Brand  

Martin  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Martin’s  Bull  Head  Fertilizer  

Martin’s  4-8-3  

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J. 
Triangle  Brand  4-8-3  


Where  Sampled 


Greenwich  

Greenwich  

Hopewell  

Elmer  

Perrineville  

Ringoes  

Bridgeton  

Bridgeton  

Robbinsville  

Robbinsville  

Robbinsville  

Middlebush  

Somerville  

Bloomfield  

Red  Bank  

Titusville  

Orange  Valley  

Orange  Valley  

Orange  Valley  

Swedesboro  

Salem  

Caldwell  

Greenwich  

Germania  

Gladstone  

Hammonton  

Hammonton  

Mt.  Holly  . . ., 


Error  made  in  shipment.  Material  paid  for  in  accordance  with  the  analysis. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COM^IERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


23 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

\s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

\s  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

! 

j Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Aval 

•a 

c 

3 

0 

u. 

5“ 

Guaranteed  2 

1 

Found 

Guaranteed 

0.15 

0.87 

0.11 

0.54 

1.67 

1.65 

2.06 

6.08 

2.13 

10.27 

10.00 

I 8.14 

: 9.00 

0.98 

j 1.00 

1.21 

0.73 

0.15 

0.35 

2.44 

2.47 

5.20 

5.03 

1.48 

11.71 

10.00 

; 10.23 

; 9.00 

1.51 

1.00 

0.05 

0.12 

0.59 

0.76 

0.82 

4.62 

3.44 

1.57 

9.63 

9.00 

8.06 

8.00 

1.25 

1.00 

0.70 

0.40 

0.51 

1.61 

1.65 

4.74 

5.37 

1.83 

11.94 

11.00 

' 10.11 

10.00 

*^1.51 

1.00 

1.58 

0.45 

0.56 

2.59 

3.28 

5.94 

3.21 

0.85 

10.00 

9.00 

9.15 

8.00 

*1.26 

2.00 

0.33 

0.06 

0.41  ! 

0.80 

0.82 

0.42 

5.40 

2.96 

8.78 

8.00 

5.82 

7.00 

1 

*0.75 

1 

1.00 

0.58 

1.04 

0.45 

0.84 

2.91 

3.30 

4.84 

3.91 

1.19 

9.94 

9.00 

8.75 

8.00  1 

*^2.42 

1 2.00 

2.27 

0.33 

0.71  i 

3.31 

3.30 

6.74 

3.00 

j 0.84 

10.58 

9.00 

9.74 

8.00 

*0.35 

2.00 

0.75 

0.22 

0.33 

0.75 

2.05 

2.06 

6.34 

2.39 

1.54 

10.27- 

9.00 

8.73 

8.00  1 

*1.20 

1.00 

1.61  i 

1.08 

0.20 

0.57 

3.46 

3.29 

4.02 

4.40 

1.72 

10.14 

9.00 

8.42 

8.00 

*2.75 

3.00 

1.10  i 

0.62 

0.52 

0.98  . 

3.22 

3.29 

5.14 

3.81 

2.19' 

11.14 

10.00 

8.95 

9.00 

*1.08 

1.00 

0.21 

0.10 

0.59 

0.43 : 

1.33 

1.23 

7.62 

3.65 

1.78 

13.05 

11.00 

11.27 

10.00 

*0.97 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.11 

0.27 

0.38  : 

0.76 

0.82  ! 

4.17 

4.53 

1.75 

10'.45 

9.00 

8.70 

8.00 

*0.58 

1.00 

0.25 

0.12 

0.29 

0.52  ' 

1.18 

1.23 

6.56 

3.38 

2.25  i 

12.19 

11.00  ' 

9.94 

10.00 

1.04 

1.00 

1.12 

0.48 

0.35 

0.50 

2.45 

2.47 

8.64 

1.37 

0.89 

10.90 

10.00 

! 10.01 

9.00 

*1.53 

1.00 

0.08 

0.14 

0.56 

0.78 

0.82 

7.26 

3.94 

1.84 

13.04 

11.00 

11.20 

10.00 

*1.11 

1.00 

1.54 

1.47 

0.43 

0.56 

4.00 

4.11 

5.46 

2.75 

2.03 

10.24 

9.00 

8.21 

8.00 

*1.27 

1.00 

0.67 

0.27 

0.55 

0.59 

2.08 

2.06 

5.96 

! 1.76 

1.65 

9.37 

9.00 

7.72 

8.00 

*1.41 

1.00 

1.20 

1.55 

0.65 

0.66 

4.06 

4.11 

4.90 

3.24 

1.77 

9.91 

9.00 

8.14 

8.00 

.,.14 

1.00 

0.54 

0.20 

0.76 

1.50 

1.65 

2.20 

5.99 

2.77 

10.96 

9.00 

8.19 

8.00 

*3.04 

3.00 

2.38 

0.05 

0.25 

^0.68  ! 

3.36 

3.29 

3.34 

4.28 

1.07 

8.69 

9.00 

7.62 

8.00 

*3.44 

3.00 

1.02 

0.48 

0.26 

0.52 

2.28 

2.47 

6.76 

2.08 

2.94 

11.78 

10.00 

8.84 

9.00 

1.31 

1.00 

3.09 

0.02 

0.13 

^0.44  i 

3.68 

3.71 

2.42 

5.91 

2.05 

10.38 

8.00 

8.33 

8.00 

''1.45 

1.00 

10.54 

1 0.02 

0.02 

0.20  ! 

10.78 

9.88 

0.52 

4.98 

1.74 

7.24 

8.00 

5.50 

5.00 

*1.89 

1.00 

1.97 

0.02 

0.11 

20.50 

2.60 

2.47 

7.58 

4.47 

12.05 

10.00 

7.58 

8.00 

*1.32 

1.00 

2.72 

0.03 

0.03 

^0.39 

3.1-7 

2.47 

0.68 

6.01 

2.27 

8.96 

9.00 

6.69 

8.00 

*1.36 

1.00 

1.69 

0.03 

0.09 

10.39 

2.20 

3.30 

0.04 

7.33 

2.22 

9.59 

9.00 

7.37  i 

8.00 

*2.85 

3.00 

1.50 

0.86 

0.47 

0.64 

3.47 

3.29 

2.84 

5.57 

2.54  ! 

10.95 

9.00 

8.41 

8.00 

*3.24 

3.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  The  excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 

amount  of  inferior  quality. 

3 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  The  excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  amount 

of  inferior  quality. 


24 


Bulletin  331 

COM3IERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


S 

3 

"Z 


c 

_o 

(75 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Samples 


18514 

18516 

18478 

18479 
18481 

18234 

18949 

180096 

18914 

18919 

18767 

18180 

18451 

18630 

18593 

18633 

18029 

18185 

18562 

18833 

18835 

18855 

18455 

18496 

18499 


J.  R.  Moore,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

J.  R.  Moore’s  H.  G.  Potash  Sweet  Potato  Manure 

J.  R.  Moore’s  Early  Truck  and  Potato  Manure  

J.  R.  Moore’s  2-8-2  Sweet  Potato  Manure  

J.  R.  Moore’s  Superior  Gold  Edge  Sweet  Potato  Manure 

J.  R.  Moore’s  Baxter  Special  Tomato  Grower 

Nassau  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Nassau  Special,  1916  

General  Favorite  Fish  Mixture  

Wheat  and  Grass  Grower,  1916  

Albert  Nelson,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

Nelson’s  Special  Fish  and  Potash  

Nelson’s  H.  G.  Potato  Phosphate 

Patapsco  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Patapsco  Fish  Guano,  1916  

Rasin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Rasin’s  Electric  Truck  and  Vegetable  Manure  

Rasin’s  Champion  Potato  and  Vegetable  Manure  

Rasin’s  H.  G.  Potato  and'  Truck  Manure  

Reading  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

Blood,  Meat  and  Potash  Mixture 

Ellwood  Roberts  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Jersey  Special  

F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Royster’s  True  Blue  Compound  

*Royster’s  True  Blue  Compound  

Royster’s  Fish,  Flesh  and  Fowl  Phosphate  

Royster’s  Dreadnought  Fertilizer  

Royster’s  Big  Bet  Fertilizer  

Schanck,  Hutchinson  & Field,  Hightstown,  N.  J. 

Davison’s  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture  for  Potatoes  

Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Elkton,  Md. 

W.  R.  Hackett’s  No.^1  Special  Potato  Manure  

Harry  L.  Sockel,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

E.  Sickel’s  2-8-2  for  Sweet  and  White  Potatoes 

B.  Sickel’s  1-8-1  Special  for  Sweet  Potatoes 


Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Atco  

Bound  Brook  

New  Germantown.. 

Nelsonville  

Nelsonville  

Red  Bank  

Salem.  

Bridgeton  

Evesboro  

Pedricktown  

Winslow  Junction.  . 

Robbinsville  

Salem  

Swedesboro  

Tennent  

Tennent  

Hightstown  

Quinton  

Vineland  

Vineland  


Duplicate  sample. 


25 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

.\s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

.As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Found 

I'otal  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Ava 

TJ 

C 

3 

O 

u. 

Guaranteed  i 2 

i ^ 

Pound 

Guaranteed  | 

0.67 

0.01 

0.01 

0.17 

0.86 

0.82 

7.14 

1.87 

0.50 

i 

9.51 

9.00 

9.01 

8.00 

4.72 

5.00 

3.15 

0.02 

0.03 

0.18 

3.38 

3.29 

4.58 

4.24 

i 0.82 

9.64 

: 9.00 

8.82 

8.00 

*2.46 

2.00 

1.40 

0.03 

0.16 

1.59 

1.65 

1.80 

6.83 

i 0.80 

9.43 

i 9.00 

8.63 

8.00 

*2.25 

2.00 

1.32 

0.02 

0.10 

0.21 

1.65 

1.65 

7.50 

1.60 

. 0.42 

9.52 

9.00 

9.10 

8.00 

*3.03 

3.00 

3.65 

0.01 

0.14 

^0.21 

4.01 

3.70 

3.52 

3.90 

1 0.69 

8.11 

8.00 

7.42 

7.00 

*1.58 

1.00 

1.18 

0.70 

0.19 

0.39 

2.46 

2.47. 

5.74 

3.81 

1.51 

11.06 

10.00 

9.55 

9.0f' 

1.28 

1.00 

0.24 

0.14 

0.17 

0.77 

1.32 

1.23 

6.88 

3.52 

i 1.60 

12.00 

11.00 

10.40 

10.00 

1.17 

1.00 

0.20 

0.32 

0.07 

0.41 

1.00 

0.82 

4.92 

3.10 

1.34 

9.36 

1 9.00 

! 

8.02 

8.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.08 

0.02 

0.10 

^0.37 

1.57 

1.65 

6.90 

1.37 

' 0.68 

8.95 

9.50 

8.27 

8.50 

0.80 

1.00 

2.03 

0.07 

0.21 

3 0.80 

3.11 

3.29 

5.00 

3.23 

1.12 

9.35 

1 

9.00 

8.23 

8.00 

3.36 

3.00 

0.15 

0.12 

0.14 

0.71 

1.12 

1.23 

6.10 

3.67 

i 

i 2.46 

12.23 

11.00 

9.77 

10.00 

M.73 

1.00 

2.83 

0.04 

0.18 

0.46 

3.51 

4.12 

7.80 

1.13 

; 0.85 

^ 9.78 

9.00 

8.93 

8.00 

3.25 

3.00 

2.16 

0.05 

0.27 

3 0.54 

3.02 

3.29 

4.40 

3.69 

1.17 

9.26 

9.00 

1 8.09 

8.00 

3.12 

3.00 

2.61 

0.03 

0.17 

3 0.41 

3.22 

3.29 

6.08 

2.03 

1.12 

i 9.23 

9.00 

8.11 

8.00 

1.85 

2.00 

0.75 

0.63 

0.41 

1.79 

1.64 

2.90 

5.51 

1.70 

10.11 

9.00 

8.41 

8.00 

1.99 

2.00 

0.14 

0.17 

0.48 

0.79 

0.82 

3.96 

3.80 

1.02 

8.78 

8.00 

7.76 

8.00 

1.12 

1.00 

2.03 

0.46 

0.67 

3.16 

3.29 

3.88 

4.32 

: 1.34  ! 

! 

9.54 

8.50 

8.20 

8.00 

*3.14 

3.00 

1.89 

0.32 

0.98 

3.19 

3.29 

3.40 

4.84 

2.20  1 

10.44 

8.50 

8.24 

8.00 

*2.88 

3.00 

0.12 

0.96 

0.41 

30.39 

1.88 

1.65 

4.84 

3.93 

1.06 

9.83  I 

8.50 

8.77 

8.00 

*2.80 

3.00 

Tr. 

0.88 

0.32 

0.54 

1.74 

1.65 

4.12 

3.73 

1.65  i 

9.50 

8.50 

7.85 

8.00 

*2.58 

2.00 

Tr. 

1.66 

0.21 

1.24 

3.11 

3.29 

4.56 

4.13 

1.34 

10.03 

8.50 

8.69 

8.00 

*2.34 

2.00 

2.41 

0.19 

1 

0.15 

0.25 

3.00  i 

1 

3.29 

5.06 

3.67 

1.37 

10.10 

9.00 

8.73 

8.00 

2.99 

3.00 

1.87 

0.16 

0.38 

1.53 

3.94 

4.10 

Tr. 

7.79 

1.74 

9.53 

12.00 

7.79 

10.00 

5.34 

5.00 

Tr. 

0.74 

0.43 

^0.57 

1.74 

1.65 

6.28 

2.33 

1.72 

10.33 

8.00 

8.61 

8.00 

1.75 

2.00 

0.12 

0.41 

2 0.39 

0.92 

0.82 

6.90 

2.08 

1.01 

9.99 

8.00  ;! 

8.98 

8.00 

*1.27 

1.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  the  amount  of 
inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  the 

amount  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


26  Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


1 

u 

^ , 
e ! 

s 

c 

.2 

Manufacturer  and  Brand 

! 

Where  Sampled 

18609 

South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange,  Woodstown,  N.  J. 

A 3%  Exchange  Special  H.  G.  Potato  Fertilizer  

Bridgeton  

18548 

B 3%  Exchange  Special  White  Potato  Manure  

Daretown  

18442 

B 5%  Exchange  Extra  Special  Potato  Fertilizer  

Bridgeton  

18608 

D 3%  Exchange  Extra  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

18550 

1 B 3%  1 Exchange  Special  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Elmer  

1852'f 

Woodstown  

1852!> 

:B:3%  Exchange  Special  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

18521! 

:E:2%  Exchange  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

18526 

:E:5%  Exchange  Special  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

18506 

i *:E:5%  Exchange  Special  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  

Swedesboro  

18545 

B 3%  X Exchange  Special  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

18546 

*B  3%  X Exchange  Special  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

18544 

(B  3%)  Exchange  Special  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Elmer  

18267 

South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange  4-8-3  

Elmer  

18759 

Standard  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

. 4-8-3  

Ti  ri  ^Ptnn 

18762 

4-8-2  

18257 

Swift  & Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Swift’s  Red  Steer  

P'  1 m 

18538 

*Swift’s  Red  Steer  

Vineland  

18559 

Swift’s  White  Potato  Fertilizer  

Swedesboro  

18026 

Swift  & Co.,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

Swift’s  Market  Garden  Manure  

Perrineville  

18045 

Holley  Market  Garden  Manure  

Mt.  Holly  

18723 

Swift’s  Garden  and  Truck  Fertilizer  

Lakewood  

18977 

.Swift’s  Truck  and  Vegetable  Fertilizer  

Martinsville  

180036 

Swift’s  Corn  Grower  

Gladstone  

180050 

Swift’s  Standard  Potato  Fertilizer  

Far  Hills  

18205 

Taylor  Bros.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

High  Grade  Potato  Phosphate  .» 

Camden  

18206 

T.  B.  Superior  Ammoniated  Phosphate  

Camden  

18340 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Potato  Manure  with  2%  Potash  

Thorofare  

18426 

Truckers’  High  Grade  Manure  

New  Lisbon  

18655 

Special  Mixture  No.  2 (formula  given)  

Moorestown  

180123 

I.  P,  Thomas’  4-8-3  Fertilizer  

Lambertville  

180064 

Superior  Superphosphate  

Barbertown 

180065 

Grain  Special  Fertilizer  

Rarbertnwn  

18364 

Tip  Top  Fertilizer  

Mickleton  

Duplicate  sanii)Ie. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


27 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

As  Nitrates  1 

1 

As  Ammonia  Salts  , 

As  Soluble  Organic 
Matter  i 

As  Insoluble  Organic  ; 
Matter  ' 

1 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed  | 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  m 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Aval 

■D 

C 

S 

O 

u. 

S' 

Guaranteed  i Z 

n 

Found 

Guaranteed 

2.20 

0.21 

1.45 

3.86 

4.11 

8.80 

1.52 

1 0.84 

11.16 

11.00 

10.32 

i 10.00 

"^2.91 

3.00 

1.84 

0.38 

0.99 

3.21 

3.29 

3.88 

4.60 

1.79 

10.27 

9.00 

8.48 

' 8.00 

*3.12 

3.00 

1.82 

0.23 

0.17 

0.91 

3.13 

3.29 

7.08 

2.05 

1.70 

j 10.83 

9.00 

9.13 

8.00 

i *4.72 

5.00 

Tr. 

1.94 

0.42 

1.83 

4.19 

4.11 

4.44 

4.56 

1.41 

i 10.41 

9.00 

9.00 

, 8.00 

^ *2.85 

3.00 

1.97 

0.06 

0.34 

0.80 

3.17 

3.29 

6.90 

2.01 

1.54 

10.45 

9.00 

8.91 

8.00 

*3.21 

3.00 



0.22 

0.42 

0.64 

1.28 

0.82 

1.78 

6.33 

2.46 

j 10.57 

9.00 

8.11 

8.00 

*4.51 

5.00 

0.91 

1.36 

0.09 

1.00 

3.36 

3.25 

3.52 

4.90 

1.34 

9.76 

9.00 

8.42 

8.00 

i *3.06 

3.00 

Tr. 

1.51 

0.20 

^0.55 

2.26 

1.65 

2.88 

4.98 

1.09 

8.95 

9.00 

7.86 

8.00 

*2.34 

2.00 

0.49 

0.06 

0.25 

30.37 

1.17 

0.82 

Tr. 

8.29 

2.15 

10.44 

9.00 

8.29 

8.00 

! 4.95 

5.00 

0.61 

0.09 

0.03 

30.37 

1.10 

0.82 

4.22 

3.52 

2.91 

10  65 

9.00 

7.74 

8.00 

^5.48 

5.00 

2.08 

0.06 

0.36 

0.95 

3.45 

3.29 

6.55 

2.87 

0.93 

10.36 

9.00 

9.43 

8.00 

*2.67 

3.00 

1.86 

0.06 

0.80 

0.60 

3.32 

3.29 

4.76 

3.61 

1.50 

9.87 

9.00 

8.37 

8.00 

*3.03 

3.00 

0.80 

0.89 

0.23 

1.61 

3.53 

3.29 

2.18 

5.37 

' 2.42 

9.97 

9.00 

7.55 

8.00 

3.14 

3.00 

1.75  1 

0.14 

0.83 

0.71 

3.43 

3.29 

4.96 

3.10 

i 1.78 

9.84 

8.50 

8.06 

8.00 

*3.05 

3.00 

1.56 

0.07 

0.16 

M.14 

2.93 

3.29 

6.18 

3.16 

0.54 

9.88 

9.34 

8.00 

*2.73 

3.00 

1.66 

0.04 

0.13 

1.30 

3.13 

3.29 

6.02 

2.71  i 

i 

0.48 

9.21 

8.73 

8.00 

2.23 

2.00 

0.55 

0.20 

0.08 

2 0.73 

1.56 

1.65 

5.44 

1 

3.17  i 

0.93 

9.54 

8.00 

8.61 

8.00 

1.91 

2.00 

0.68  , 

0.08 

0.13 

’0.84 

1.73 

1.65 

4.38 

4.08 

1.80 

10.26 

8.00 

8.46 

8.00 

1 2.05 

2.00 

Tr.  1 

I 

2.38 

0.38 

0.57 

3.33 

3.29 

3.18 

5.00 

2.17 

10.35 

8.00 

8.18 

8.00 

2.44 

3.00 

1 

i 

2.09 

0.16 

0.80 

3.05 

3.29 

2.46 

4.96 

1.86 

9.28 

8.00 

7.42 

8.00 

! 3.36 

3.00 

0.38 

1.69 

0.25 

0.86 

3.18 

3.29 

4.16 

3.59 

1.68 

9.43 

8.00 

7.75 

8.00 

1 *3.16 

3.00 

0.35 

1.62 : 

0.30 

0.76 

3.03 

[ 3.29 

5.76 

2.03 

0.84 

8.63 

8.00 

7.79 

8.00 

1.53 

1.00 

0.33 

0.72  1 

0.12 

0.76 

1.93 

1.65 

5.30 

5.22 

1.64 

12.16 

8.00 

10.52 

8.00 

0.75 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.18 

0.37 

0.93 

1.48 

1.65 

3.63 

6.38 

2.34 

12.35 

10.00 

10.01 

10.00 

0.82 

1.00 

0.33  1 

0.26 

0.10 

1.18 

1.87 

1.65 

4.40 

3.36 

0.97 

8.73 

8.00 

7.76 

8.00 

1.97 

3.00 

0.16 

0.93 

0.22 

’0.50 

1.81 

1.65 

8.10 

1.97 

1.41 

11.48 

10.00 

10.07 

10.00 

1.16 

1.00 

0.56 

0.15 

0.40 

2 0.51 

1.62 

1.65 

7.42 

2.01 

1.39 

10.82 

1 8.00 

9.43 

8.00 

1.01 

1.00 

1.03 

1.45 

0.14 

0.79 

3.41 

3.25 

1.52 

7.28 

1.54 

10.34 

8.50 

8.80 

8.00 

*2.32 

2.00 

1.22 

1.30 

0.08 

0.52 

3.12 

3.25 

4.20 

4.58 

1.45  ; 

10.23 

8.50 

8.78 

8.00 

*1.33 

1.00 

1.22 

0.22 

0.31 

1.17 

2.92 

2.76 

5.09 

2.41 

10.26 

7.85 

2.24 

0.65 

1.31 

0.18 

0.88 

3.02 

3.25 

4.08 

4.62 

1.52 

10.22 

8.50 

8.70 

8.01 

3.01 

3.00 

0.05 

0.19 

’0.61 

0.85 

0.82 

0.62 

5.66 

3.87 

10.15 

7.50 

6.28 

7.00 

*1.04 

1.00 

0.66 

0.04 

0.13 

3 0.19 

1.02 

0.82 

0.48 

6.74 

1.98 

9.20 

8.50 

7.22 

8.00 

2.00 

2.00 

0.96 

1.17 

0.11 

0.54 

2.78 

' 2.45 

3.96 

4.01 

1.29 

9.26 

8.50 

7.97 

8.00 

1.22 

1.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  the 

amount  of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

® Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  the  amount 
of  inferior  quality. 


28  Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  and  Brand 

Wherb  Sampled 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

18133 

4-8-3  Potato  

1 Beverly  

F.  W.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18007 

1918  Special  Potato  Manure  

Allentown  

18391 

Monmouth’s  Pride  Potato  Manure  

Cranbury  

18101 

*Monmouth’s  Pride  Potato  Manure  .• 

Freehold  

18009 

Robbinsville  Potato  Special  

Allentown  

18181 

1918  Pride  of  Jersey 

Salem  

18204 

Beverly  

18269 

1918  Sweet  Potato  Manure  

Westville  

18350 

1918  Truck  Manure  

Williamstown  

18351 

1918  Jersey  Potato  Manure  

Williamstown  

J.  E.  Tygert  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18533 

Standard  Fertilizer  

Vineland  

18535 

Sweet  Potato  Guano,  1916  

1 Vineland  

18536 

Paramount  Potato  and  Truck  Manure,  1916 

Vineland  

18868 

Golden  Harvest  Phosphate,  1916  

Burlington  

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18024 

C & B XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Potato  Manure  with  3%  Potash 

Perrineville  

18894 

*C  & B XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Potato  Manure  with  3%  Potash 

Cranbury  

18031 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Double  Owl  Brand  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer 

with  3%  Potash  

Englishtown  

18085 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Universal  Fertilizer  for  all  Crops 

Beverly  

18517 

*V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Universal  Fertilizer  for  all  Crops 

Swedesboro  

18264 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Owl  Brand  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer  with 

3%  Potash  

Elmer  

18084 

j V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  XXXX  Fish  and  Potato  Mixture  

Beverly  

18814 

1 V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Double  Owl  Brand  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer 

with  1%  Potash  

Freehold  

West  Jersey  Marl  and  Transportation  Co.,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

18144 

Early  Potato  Manure  

Daretown  

18162 

1 1-8-3  Brand  

Delair  

18273 

Special  Sweet  Potato  Manure  

Woodbury  

18336 

i Tomato  and  Potato  Manure  

Thorofare  

18276 

High  Grade  Truck  Manure  

Gloucester  

18335 

' All  Crop  Mixture  

Thorofare  

18368 

I 2-8-2  Brand  

Thorofare  

J.  K.  Wyckoff,  Princeton  Junction,  N.  J. 

18567 

Wyckoff’s  Special  Potato  Fertilizer  

Princeton  Junction. 

18569 

Wyckoff’s  Market  Garden  Manure  

Princeton  Junction. 

Duplicate  sample. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


29 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

Available 

O 

o 

'S 

■3 

•3 

13 

Kf) 

’c 

s 

o 

•o 

V 

V 

•h> 

c 

U 

V 

a 

CJ 

•o 

u 

u 

3 

V 

.2 

‘S 

o 

s 

o 

.w 

3 

3 

3 

o 

c 

3 

O 

u. 

3 

u 

9 

3 

o 

V 

.si 

’u'c 

3 

3 

c 

o 

u. 

3 

2 

o 

3 

V 

V 

c 

3 

<U 

<u 

•t-l 

c 

< 

u 

O <L> 

in  ^ 

c a 

’« 

•2  p 

3 

■2 

*3 

■3 

C 

3 

3 

3 

3 

C 

3 

3 

3 

ir,  ^ 

o 

o 

3 

o » 

o 

O 

o 

3 

O 

3 

< 

<3 

<1^ 

E- 

cn 

c/^<: 

b- 

H 

U. 

O 

u. 

o 

1.60 

0.43 

0.42 

0.69 

3.14 

3.28 

6.30 

2.61 

1.86 

0.50 

0.78 

3.14 

3.30 

4.0'6 

4.08 

0.62 

1.30 

0.33 

0.90 

3.15 

3.30 

3.06 

5.24 

2.07 

0.15 

0.70 

3.22  i 

3.30 

3.08 

5.22 

1.73 

0.67 

0.70 

3.10  : 

3.30: 

4.76 

3.55 

1.32 

0.58 

1.23 

3.13  ! 

3.30 

3.16 

4.10 

1.09 

0.11 

0.14 

U.03 

2.37  1 

2.46 

i 1.76 

2.99 

0.4:1 

0.74 

0.19 

0.57 

1.93 

1.64 

1.08 

6.31 

1.79 

0.74 

0.79 

3.32 

4.12 

1.64 

5.86 

1.83 

0.60 

0.84 

3.27 

3.30 

1.36 

5.60 

0.44 

0.49 

0.20 

0.37 

1.50  ! 

1.65 

2.80 

4.73 

0.41 

0.43 

0.42 

1.26 

1.23 

4.48 

5.45 

1.46 

1.09 

0.11 

0.46 

3.12 

3.29 

2.64 

5.53 

Tr. 

0.21 

0.42 

0.35 

0.98 

0.82 

5.12 

3.21 

1.88 

0.94 

0.02 

10.31 

3.15 

3.29 

6.22 

2.04 

0.21 

1.80 

0.46 

0.77 

3.24 

3.29 

2.04 

5.69 

0.15 

1.79 

0.72 

0.72 

3.38 

3.29 

2.14 

5.56 

Tr. 

0.50 

0.36 

0.24 

1.10 

0.82 

0.82 

8.09 

1.47 

0.14 

0.27 

0.63 

2.51 

0.82 

7.60 

1.73 

1.4.1 

0.08 

0.21 

0.09 

1.81 

1.65 

5.70 

2.93 

0.76 

0.32 

0.08 

0.32 

1.48 

1.65 

6.02 

2.91 

2.75 

0.36 

0.66 

3.77 

1 3.29 

4.70 

2.48 

0.92 

1.74 

0.09 

2 0.54 

3.29 

3.28 

6.16 

2.15 

Tr. 

0.18 

0.42 

20.48 

1.08 

0.82 

5.68 

2.40 

1.04 

0.10 

10.50 

1.64 

1.65 

6.92 

3.02 

0.91 

1.20 

0.10 

0.52 

2.73 

2.87 

7.88 

2.47 

0.24 

2.09 

0.18 

10.62 

3.13 

3.28 

7.28 

1.58 

0.71 

0.22 

0.21 

0.81 

1.95 

2.05 

4.02 

2.53 

0.13 

0.76 

0.53 

! 2 0.52 

! 

1.94 

1.65 

7.16 

1.65 

1.78 

0.36 

P 

bo 

2.94 

3.29 

4.96 

3.15 

1.92 

0.18 

0.22 

0.66 

2.98 

I 3.29 

!!  3.30 

4.74 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

amount  of  inferior  quality. 

3 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

of  inferior  quality. 


1.54 

10.45 

9.00 

8.91 

8.00 

*2.85 

3.00 

1.52 

9.66 

9.00 

8.14 

8.00 

3.10 

3.00 

1.12 

9.42  : 

9.00 

1 8.30 

8.00 

2.35 

2.00 

0.88  ' 

9.18 

9.00 

8.30 

8.00 

1.99 

2.00 

1.20 

9.51 

9.00  ' 

8.31 

8.00 

3.74 

4.00 

2.42  ! 

9.68 

8.00 

7.26 

7.00 1; 

*2.05 

2.00 

0.66  ; 

5.41  ! 

1 

1 4.75 

5.00 

*0.88 

0.50 

2.61  , 

10.00  I 

9.00 

7.39 

8.00 

*1.83 

2.00 

1.81 

9.31 

7.00 

7.50 

6.00 

1.04 

1.00 

2.26  ; 

9.22 

9.00 

6.96 

8.00 

*1.25 

1.00 

1.68 

9.21  ' 

9.00 

7.53 

8.00 

1.81 

2.00 

2.29  ! 

12.22 

11.00 

9.93 

lO.OO 

1.23 

1.00 

1.49 

9.66 

9.00 

8.17 

8.00 

2.84 

3.00 

0.96 

9.29  1 

j 

9.00  1 

8.33 

8.00 

1.10 

1.00 

0.36 

8.62 

9.00 

8.26 

8.00 

*3.01 

3.00 

2.07 

9.80 

9.00 

7.73 

8.00 

*3.06 

3.00 

1.78 

■ 9.48 

1 9.00 

7.70 

8.00 

*4.04 

3.00 

2.27 

11.18 

I 10.00 

8.91 

9.00 

*3.17 

3.00 

0.80 

10.13 

10.00 

9.33 

9.00 

1.38 

3.00 

0.55 

9.18 

9.00 

8.63 

8.00 

*2.81 

3.00 

1.12 

10.05 

9.01) 

8.93 

8.60 

1.34 

1.00 

0.82 

8.00 

9.00 

7.18 

8.00 

*1.62 

1.00 

1.47 

9.78 

0 

06 

8.31 

8.00 

*3.34 

3.00 

1.80 

9.88 

j 8.00 

8 08 

8.00 

*2.78 

3.00 

1.77 

11.71 

9.00 

9.94 

9.00 

0.90 

1.00 

1.67 

12.02 

10.00 

10.35 

10.00 

1.29 

1.00 

1.46 

' 10.32 

8.00 

, 8.86 

8.00 

1.13 

1.00 

3.03 

9.58 

6.00 

6.55 

6.00 

1.09 

1.00 

1.56 

10.37 

8.00 

8.81 

8.00 

*1.60 

2.00 

1.50 

9.61 

8.00 

8.11 

8.00 

2.85 

3.00 

1.72 

9.76 

8.00 

8.04 

8.00 

*3.20 

1 3.00 

Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  tkc 
Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  the  am*««t 


30  Bulletin  331 

CO>IMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing'  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


V 

a ! 

3 

Z 

C 

_o 

OS 

t))  I 


18430 

18573 

18577 

18396 

18358 

18353 

18198 

18360 

18356 

18344 

180045 
18637 
18675 
18243 
180112 
18227 
18219 
18247 
180046 
180211 
18887  i 
180212 

18094 
180247 

18095  ; 
18733  i 
18736  ; 

180136  I 
180137  I 
180107 
18387 
180017 
18851  j 
18237  j 
18611  ! 
180164 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Acme  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Perfect  Potato  

Ammoniated  Fish  Guano  No.  1 

Acme  Early  Truck  No.  1 

Active  Chemical  Co.,  Cam.den,  N.  J. 

Semper  Potato  King  Fertilizer  

Semper  Corn  Grower  

Semper  All  Crop  Fertilizer  

Semper  Condor  

Semper  Special  Fertilizer  

Semper  Active  Fertilizer  

Semper  Premium  Fertilizer  

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  A 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  A A 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AAA  

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  A AAA  

High  Grade  Ammoniated  I-^ertilizer  

Superphosiihate  wdth  Ammonia  4 Per  Cent  

XXX  Ammoniated  Fertilizer  

Great  Truck  Special  

Soluble  Grain  Mixture  

Special  Potato  Phosphate  

Bradley’s  Special  Superior  Compound,  Revised  . . 

Bradley  Truckers’  Delight  

Crocker’s  Champion  Potato  Grower  

Crocker’s  Special  Colonial  Fertilizer,  Revised  . . . . 

East  India  Victor  Special,  1916  

East  India  Special  Improved  Compound  

East  India  Early  Market  

Milsom’s  Golden  Eagle  

Milsom’s  Potato  Producer  

Potomac  Top  Dressing  Manure  

Read’s  Top  Notch  Mixture  

Read’s  Practical  Grain  Grower  

Read’s  Farm  and  Garden  Manure  

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Gold  Seal  Potato  Manure 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Grain  Mixture 

.Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Practical  Guano  


Where  Sampled 


W estville  

Repaupo  

Repaupo  

Salem  

Camden  

Camden  

Camden  

Camden  

Camden  

Sewell  

; Neshanic  

I Woodbury  

Cape  May 

I Blackwood  

River  Edge  

Chews  Landing  .... 

Elmer  

Blackwood  

j Ne^,hanic  

I Roselle  

I Plainsboro  

j Roselle  

Marlboro  

Orange  

Marlboro  

Red  Bank  

Red  Bank  

Paterson  

Paterson  

Bernardsville  

Cranbury  

Three  Bridges  

Hightstown  

Blackwood  

Vineland  

Hainesburg  ".  . 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


31 


Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 

Phosphoric  Acid 

As  Nitrates 

.\s  Ammonia  Salts  ! 

.'\s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insolunle  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  'Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Avail; 

! 

•a 

c 

a 

o 

u. 

» 

i ^ 

Guaranteed  | ^ 

3.83 

0.01 

0.09 

10.16 

4. 

09 

3. 

28 

1.06 

5 . 

91 

1 , 

.25 

8. 

22 

9. 

00 

6.97 

8.00 

2.54 

0.02 

0.10 

10.19 

2. 

85 

2. 

46 

1.20 

6. 

33 

1. 

,33 

8. 

86 

9. 

00 

7.53 

8.00 

3.98 

0.01 

0.19 

10.17 

4. 

35 

4. 

10 

0.92 

5. 

32 

1, 

,21 

i 

7. 

45 

8. 

00 

6.24 

7.00 

0.7;; 

1.08 

0.05 

0.14 

1. 

99 

■ 1 

64 

6.12 

3. 

97 

0, 

i 

.61 

10. 

70 

11. 

00 

10.09 

10.00 

0.51 

0.17 

0.05 

0.10 

0. 

83 

0. 

82 

7.72 

2. 

57  1 

0 

.62 

10. 

91 

11. 

00 

10.29 

10.00 

0.98 

0.54 

0.02 

0.19 

1. 

73 

1. 

64 

4.54 

3. 

55 

0, 

.30  1 

8. 

39 

9. 

00 

8.09 

8.00 

2.06 

1.44 

0.01 

0.15 

3. 

66 

4. 

10 

6.18 

2. 

06 

0 

.24  I 

8. 

48 

9. 

,00 

8.24 

8.00 

1.61  i 

1.11  ; 

0.03 

0.11 

2. 

86 

3. 

28 

7.60 

2. 

19 

0 

. ^4  1 

10. 

33 

11, 

,00 

9.79 

10.00 

1.23 

0.79  ; 

0.17 

0.13 

2. 

32 

2. 

46 

5.46  ^ 

2 

,44 

1 ^ 

.34  : 

8. 

24 

9. 

,00 

7.90 

8.00 

2.32 

0.01  I 

0.02 

0.07 

2. 

42 

3. 

28 

1 6.36 

2 . 

,50 

0 

.47  1 

9. 

33 

9. 

,00 

8.86 

! 8.00 

0.01  ‘ 

0.29 

0.46 

0. 

76 

1 

1 

82 

6.20 

4. 

.04 

1 

.6C 

11. 

84 

11. 

.00  i 

10.24 

1 10.00 

0.49  ' 

0.53  1 

0.14 

0.43 

1. 

59 

■ 1. 

65 

6.88 

3. 

,90 

1 1 

.63 

12. 

41 

11. 

,00 

10.78 

10.00 

0.82 

0.75 

0.29 

0.44 

2. 

30 

’ 2. 

47 

5.86 

4, 

,55 

i 1 

.00 

11. 

41 

11. 

.00 

10.41 

: 10.00 

0.96 

1.24 

0.40 

0.33 

2. 

93 

i 3. 

,29 

6.00 

4. 

.60 

1 

.25 

11. 

85 

11. 

.00 

10.60 

10.00 

1.32 

1.07 

0.63 

1.09 

4. 

11 

! 4. 

11 

5.48 

2. 

.67 

1 1 

.42 

1 9. 

57 

9, 

,00 

8.15 

: 8.00 

1.49 

0.84 

0.10 

. 0.41 

2. 

,84 

i 3, 

,29 

4.24 

4. 

.39 

! 1 

.13 

1 9. 

76 

i 9 

.00 

8.63 

8.00 

. ..  . 1 

0.41 

0.61 

^ 0.42 

i 

44 

' 1. 

,23 

5.46 

4, 

,46 

i 1 

.08 

11. 

00 

^ 11. 

.00 

9.92 

10.00 

1.54 

^ 1.62 

0.37 

0.77 

30 

4. 

,11 

6.60 

4, 

.04 

' 1 

.13 

11. 

,77 

j 11, 

.00 

10.64 

10.00 

0.04 

0.30 

■'0.56 

1 0. 

90 

: 0. 

,82 

4.30 

4. 

,13 

.92 

35 

' 9. 

,00 

8.43 

8.00 

0.52 

0.10 

’ 0.42 

0.47 

1. 

.51 

: 1, 

,65 

7.34 

4 

.93 

! 1 

.17 

13. 

44 

13, 

.00 

12.27 

12.00 

0.71 

0.01 

i 0.27 

0.59 

1. 

.58 

; 1' 

,65 

5.88 

5 

.08 

! 1 

.51 

12. 

,47 

i 

.00 

10.96 

10.00 

0.83 

1.04 

0.38 

0.75 

3. 

,00 

I 3, 

.29 

6.78 

3, 

.77 

1 

.08 

63 

! 11, 

.00 

10.55 

i 10.00 

1.53 

0.65 

0.51 

' 0.70 

3. 

.39 

1 3, 

.29 

6.24 

3 

.91 

1 

.49 

11. 

,64 

i 11 

.00 

10.15 

10.00 

1.15 

0.27 

0.34 

0.46 

2 . 

,22 

1 2, 

,47 

6.70 

3 

.22 

2 

.25 

12. 

,17 

i 11 

.00 

9.92 

10.00 

1.50 

• 0.69 

! 0.49 

1 0.65 

3, 

,33 

3 

.29 

6.94 

3 

.16 

1 

.56 

11, 

,66 

1 11 

.00 

10.10 

1 10.00 

0.21 

I 0.12 

; 0.66 

: 0.64 

1. 

.63 

! 1, 

.65 

5.36 

4 

.26 

2 

.25 

11. 

,87 

! 11 

.00 

9.62 

i 10.00 

0.94 

! 0.42 

1 0.43 

1 0.62 

2. 

,41 

2, 

.47 

7.76 

2 

.51 

1 

.88 

12. 

,15 

1 11 

.00 

10.27 

i 10.00 

0.10 

0.91 

! 0.59 

1, 

.60 

! 1 

.65 

5.12 

4 

.53 

2 

.26 

11. 

91 

11 

.00 

9.65 

, 10.00 

1.61 

0.43 

0.45 

0.65 

3, 

.14 

i 

.29 

7.16 

3 

.00 

2 

.09 

12. 

,25 

i 

.00 

10.16 

, 10.00 

3.42 

1.52 

0.25 

! 0.42 

5. 

.61 

5. 

.76 

4.80 

1 

.62 

1 

.88 

8, 

.30 

! 7 

.00 

6.42 

: 6.00 

1.60 

0.61 

0.30 

1 0.64 

3 

.15 

' 3 

.30 

8.10 

2 

.26 

1 

.26 

11, 

.62 

i 11 

.00 

10.36 

10.00 

0.33 

0.11 

0.44 

0.60 

1 

.48 

I 1 

.65 

5.84 

4 

.35 

1 

.84 

12, 

,03 

11 

.00 

10.19 

10.00 

0.48 

1.68 

0.23 

1 0.97 

3 

.36 

i 2 

.47 

5.88 

3 

.27 

2 

.33 

11, 

.48 

11 

.00 

9.15 

j 10.00 

1.53 

0.87 

0.16 

1 0.48 

3 

.04 

3 

.29 

5.94 

4 

.58 

1 

.20 

11. 

.72 

11 

.00 

10.52 

10.00 

0.36 

0.53 

0.19 

0.41 

1 

.49 

1 

.65 

6.46 

3 

.85 

1 

.64 

11, 

.95 

11 

.00 

10.31 

10.00 

1.00 

0.25 

1 0.53 

! 20.63 

2 

.41 

i 2 

.47 

7.16 

2 

.61 

2 

.33 

12. 

,10 

11 

.00 

9.77 

10.00 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  the  amount 
of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  amount 

of  inferior  quality. 


32  Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric;  Acid 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  and  Brand 

1 

Where  Sampled 

18936 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City — (Continued) 
Williams  & Clark’s  Spec.  Potato  and  Root  Fertilizer  

Milltown  

18890 

Williams  & Clark’s  Sterling  Mixture  

Dayton  

180138 

W illiams  & Clark’s  Mammoth  Crop  Producer  

Dundee  Lake  

18260 

American  Fertilizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

American  Fish  Special  

Elmer  * 

18419 

American  Eagle  Potato  and  Truck  Grower  

Westville  

18889 

American  Special  Fish  Guano  

Prospect  Plains  .... 

18001 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md.,  and  Chrome,  N.  J. 

Armour’s  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer  

Skillman  

18002 

Armour’s  Corn,  Grain  and  Grass  Fertilizer  

Skillman  

18004 

Armour’s  Top  Dressing  for  Grass  Sods  

Skillman  

18223 

Armour’s  5-10  Fertilizer  

Chews  Landing  .... 

18797 

Armour’s  4-10  Fertilizer  

Medford  

18798 

Armour’s  3-10  Fertilizer  

1 Medford  

18402 

Armour’s  2-10  Fertilizer  

Salem  

18691 

Blood  and  Meat,  1918  

Tuckahoe  

18693 

Sweet  Potato,  1918  

Tuckahoe  

18846 

Armour’s  1-10  Fertilizer  

Hightstnwn 

18096 

J.  H.  Baird  & Son,  Marlboro,  N.  J. 

J.  H.  Baird’s  4)4-1014-0  

Marlboro  

18052 

Baltimore  Pulverizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Practical  Fertilizer  

Mt.  Holly  

18039 

Baugh  & Son’s  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Baugh’s  H.  G.  Ammoniated  Animal  Base  

Moorestown  

18035 

Baugh’s  The  Old  Stand-by  Dissolved  Animal  Base 

Mt.  Holly  

18923 

Baugh’s  Wheat  Fertilizer  for  Wheat  and  Grass 

Hightstown  

18628 

Baugh’s  Corn  and  Oats  Fertilizer  

Moorestown  

18152 

Baugh’s  Truckers’  Favorite  

Palmyra  

18140 

Baugh’s  Superb  Potato  Phosphate  

Woodstown  

18462 

Baugh’s  Peninsula  Grain  Producer,  1918  

Quinton  

18464 

Baugh’s  Half  and  Half  Mixture  

Quinton  

18230 

The  Berg  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Berg’s  Animal  Bone  and  Meat  

Atco  

180185 

Berg’s  Special  Wheat  Grower  

Flemington  

180153 

Berger  Bros.,  Eaaton,  Pa. 

Berger  Bros.’  Lehigh  Superphosphate,  1916  

Asbury  

Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


33 


Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 

Phosphoric  Acid 

As  Nitrates  j 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble  Organic 
[Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

1 Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Avail 

TJ 

C 

3 

O 

a, 

3“ 

[Guaranteed  ^ 

1.36 

0.68 

0.53 

0.56 

3 

13 

3 

.29 

6 

.46 

3. 

35 

2 . 

10 

11.91 

11. 

00 

9 

.81 

10.00 

0.63 

0.22 

0.34 

0.53 

1 

72 

.1 

.65 

7 

.26 

3. 

15 

2. 

61 

13.02 

11. 

00 

10 

.41 

10.00 

1.31 

0.34 

0.25 

0.55 

2 

45 

2 

.47 

7 

.16 

2. 

59 

2. 

53 

12.28 

11. 

00 

9 

.75 

10.00 

Tr. 

O.OS 

0.67 

^0.96 

1 

68 

1 

.65 

6 

.56 

3. 

65 

2. 

64 

12.85 

12. 

00 

10 

.21 

11.00 

2.53 

0.04 

0.27 

0.57 

3 

41 

3 

.29 

6 

.94 

1. 

97 

1. 

01 

9.92 

9. 

00 

8 

•91 

8.00 

0.01 

0.24 

0.50 

0 

75 

0 

.82 

6 

.10 

4. 

83 

2. 

22 

13.15 

11. 

00 

10 

.93 

10.00 

1.40 

1.38 

0.20 

1.31 

4. 

.29 

4 

.11 

10 

.08 

1. 

15 

2. 

22 

13.45 

10. 

50 

11 

.23 

10.00 

1.89 

0.03 

0.02 

0.55 

2, 

.49 

2 

.47 

13 

.00 

0. 

76 

0. 

78 

14.54 

14. 

50 

13 

.76 

14.00 

6.34 

0.05 

0.08 

0.28 

6, 

.75 

6 

.56 

6 

.00 

T. 

53 

2. 

87 

10.40 

6. 

50 

7 

.53 

6.00 

0.83 

1.28 

0.32 

1.53 

3. 

.96 

4 

.11  1 

9 

.08 

1. 

17 

0. 

93 

11.18 

10. 

50 

10 

.25 

10.00 

1.74 

0.04 

0.28 

1.12 

3, 

.18 

3 

.29 

8 

.90 

1 1- 

08 

0. 

69 

10.67 

10. 

50 

9 

.98 

10.00 

0.74 

0.46 

0.08 

1.00 

2, 

.28 

2 

.47 

7 

.66 

i 1. 

77 

0. 

75 

10.18 

10. 

50 

9, 

.43 

10.00 

0.21 

0.21 

0.39 

1.07 

1. 

.88 

1 

.65 

8 

.96 

1 

65 

1. 

00 

11.61 

10. 

50 

10, 

.61 

10.00 

Tr. 

0.42 

0.24  i 

0.93 

1. 

.59 

1 

.65 

9 

.30 

2. 

11 

0. 

87 

12.28 

10. 

50 

11, 

.41 

10.00 

Tr. 

0.26 

0.39 

0.63 

1, 

.28 

1 

.23 

4 

.76 

5. 

09 

3. 

70 

13.55 

9. 

50 

9 

.85 

9.00 

Tr. 

0.03 

0.45 

0.36 

0. 

.84 

0 

.82 

7 

.60 

0. 

42 

2. 

00 

10.92 

10. 

50 

8 

.92 

10.00 

1.89 

0.05 

0.50 

1.29 

3, 

.73 

3 

.70 

8 

•42 

2. 

69 

2. 

15 

13.26 

12. 

75 

11 

.11 

10.50 

0.81 

0.01 

0.02 

0.22 

1. 

.06 

0 

.82 

0 

.70 

5. 

76 

0. 

56 

7.02 

8. 

00 

6 

.46 

8.00 

1.21 

1.23 

0.14 

0.65 

3, 

.23 

3 

.30 

8 

.46 

2. 

76 

2. 

22 

13.44 

10. 

00 

11 

.22 

10.00 

0.53 

0.60 

0.14 

0.38 

1, 

.65 

1 

.65 

9 

.92 

3. 

02 

0. 

99 

13.93 

12. 

00 

12, 

.94 

12.00 

0.44 

0.38 

0.27 

0.58 

1, 

.67 

1 

.65 

8 

.06 

; 2. 

90 

1 . 

31 

12.27 

10. 

00 

10, 

.96 

10.00 

0.39 

0.12 

0.57 

=»0.44 

1, 

.52 

1 

.65 

7 

.94 

1. 

68 

1. 

51 

11.13 

10. 

00 

9, 

.62 

10.00 

Tr. 

0.13 

1.62 

0.73 

2. 

.48 

2 

.47 

5 

.42 

4. 

41 

3. 

65 

13.48 

10. 

00 

9 

.83 

10.00 

1.48 

2.03 

0.34 

0.35 

4. 

.20 

4 

.12 

9 

.20 

! 1- 

46 

0. 

73 

11.39 

10. 

00 

10 

.66 

10.00 

0.09 

0.60 

20.43 

1. 

.12 

0 

.82 

7 

.30 

2. 

57 

1. 

18 

11.05 

9. 

00 

9, 

.87 

9.00 

0.16 

0.58 

0.65 

1, 

.39 

1 

.23 

5 

.62 

6. 

11 

9. 

22 

20.95 

19. 

00 

11, 

.73 

12.00 

1.40 

0.06 

0.45 

1.46 

3, 

.37 

3 

.30 

1 

.92 

9. 

12 

6. 

90 

17.94 

17. 

00 

11, 

.04 

0.03 

0.49 

1.37 

1, 

.89 

1 

.65 

4 

.92 

3. 

54 

4. 

23 

12.69 

11. 

00 

8, 

.46 

8.00 

0.62 

0.18 

0.21 

0.45 

1, 

.46 

1 

.65 

6 

.92 

3. 

81 

1. 

99 

12.72 

11. 

00 

10, 

.73 

10.00 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  the 
amount  of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  infeiior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  the  amount 
of  inferior  quality. 

® Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


34 


Bulletin  331 

CO>OIERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


u 

X: 

g 

5 


c 

o 


n 

it: 


18316 

18728 

18749 

18811 

18285 

18070 

18192 

18191 

18895 

18153 

18199 

18200 
180006 

18740 

18049 

18050 

18051 
18652 

18791 

18792 
18842 

18963 

180236 

180014 

180069 

180201 

180012 

180070 

180072 

180200 

18838 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Sample* 


Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  1%  

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  2%  

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  3%  

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  4%  

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  5%  

Burlington  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Mt.  Flolly,  N.  J. 

Circle  A Brand  4-10-0  

^Circle  A Brand  4-10-0  

Circle  A Brand  2-10-0  

Chamberlin  & Barclay,  Cranbury,  N.  J. 

C & B 1918  Top  Dressing 

Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Prolific  Crop  Producer,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Original  Ammoniated  Dissolved  Phosphate,  1916 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Gardeners’  and  Truckers’  Special,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  XXV  Ammoniated  Phosphate,  1916  

E.  Frank  Coe’s  H.  G.  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  1916  

J.  S.  Collins  & Son,  Inc.,  Moorestown,  N.  J. 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Special  3-10  Fertilizer  

3- 10  Fertilizer  

4- 10  Fertilizer  

Special  4-10  Fertilizer  ' 

Columbia  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Columbia  Vitalic  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Columbia  Reflex  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Columbia  Ammoniated  Phosphate  Mixture  

Jas.  G.  Downward  Co.,  Coatesville,  Pa. 

Pioneer  Potato  Phosphate  

Alex.  Forbes  & Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Garden  Fertilizer — War  Brand  

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  and  Chem.  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Godfrey’s  Vegetable  Mixture  

Godfrey’s  Corn  Mixture  

Godfrey’s  Early  Potato  Mixture  

Godfrey’s  Soluble  Top  Dressing  for  Timothy,  Revised  

Godfrey’s  Special  Mixture  

Godfrey’s  Potato  Mixture  

Godfrey’s  Grain  Grower,  Revised  

Godfrey’s  Potato  and  Truck  Mixture  


Bridgeton  . . . 
Red  Bank  . . . 
Matawan  . . . . 
Medford  .... 
Elm  

Mt.  Holly  ... 

Collingswood 

Collingswood 

Cranbury  . . . . 

Palmyra  

Riverside  . . . . 
Riverside  . . . . 
Skillman  .... 
Hazlet  

Moorestown  . 
Moorestown  . 
Moorestown  . 
Moorestown  . 

Lewistown  . . . 
Vincentown  . 
Tennent  

Trenton  

Newark  

Three  Bridges 
Pittstown  . . . . 

Boonton  

Three  Bridges 
Pittstown  . , . 

; Pittstown  . . . 
j Boonton  .... 

1 Englishtown  . 


Duplicate  sample. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


35 


Fui’nishiiig  Nitroj^eii  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

As  Nitrates  1 

.\s  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Found  > 

CD 

5" 

Guaranteed  Z 

**  1 

Tr. 

. 

0.13 

0.61 

20.30 

1.04 

0.82 

7.36 

3.44 

1 

1.12 

11.92 

1 

11.00 

10.80 

10.00 

0.2C 

0.13 

0.61 

0.56 

1.50 

1.65 

4.70 

5.11 

2.33 

12.14 

, 11.00 

9.81 

10.00 

0.88 

0.40 

0.46 

0.59 

2.33 

2.47 

7.46 

2.77 

1.84 

12.07 

! 11.00 

10.23 

10.00 

1.21 

1.04 

0.23 

0.58 

3.06 

3.29 

6.76 

3.45 

1.85 

12.06 

11.00 

10.21 

10.00 

1.85 

1.17 

0.19 

0.47 

3.68 

4.11 

5.18 

3.99 

0.95 

10.12 

I 9.00 

9.17 

8.00 

1.87 

1.08 

0.06 

0.24 

3.25 

3.28 

6.40 

3.99 

1.53 

11.92 

; 11.00 

10.39 

10.00 

3.12 

0.03 

0.09 

0.19 

3.43 

3.28 

5.62 

4.87 

0.54 

11.03 

11.00 

10.49 

10.00 

1.34 

0.01 

0.04 

0.16 

1.55 

1.64 

5.58 

1 6.44 

2.11 

14.13 

11.00 

12.02 

10.00 

7.60 

7.60 

7.38 

7.08 

1.08 

Tr. 

8.16 

8.00 

8.16 

7.00 

0.81 

1.49 

0.40 

0.49 

3.19 

3.29 

5.70 

4.87 

1.28 

11.85 

11.00 

10.57 

10.00 

0.39 

0.61 

0.52 

1.52 

1.65 

5.68 

4.14 

1.01 

10.83 

11.00 

9.82 

10.00 

1.76 

0.82 

1.17 

3.75 

4.11 

5.96 

3.18 

2.22 

11.36  1 

9.00 

9.14 

8.00 

0.04 

0.30 

0.54 

0.88 

0.82 

4.10 

5.57 

2.73 

12.40  i 

11.00 

9.67 

10.00 

1.15 

0.41 

0.39 

*0.62 

2.57 

2.47 

8.14 

2.40 

1.46 

12.00 

11.00 

10.54 

10.00 

0.81  i 

0.33 

1.20 

2.34 

2.47 

7.70  ' 

3.17 

0.67 

11.54  ! 

11.00 

10.87 

10.00 

0.94 

0.15 

0.30  ! 

1.10 

2.49 

2.47 

7.42 

2.54 

1.96 

11.92 

10.50 

9.96  j 

10.00 

1.65 

0.49  i 

0.79 

2.93 

3.29 

7.32 

1.77 

0.71 

9.80 

10.50 

9.09 

10.00 

3.13 

■0.14 

0.51 

3.78 

3.29 

8.36  i 

2.43 

0.35 

11.14 

11.00 

10.79 

10.00 

0.65 

0.19 

0.99 

1.83 

1.65 

5.60 

3.01 

1.53 

10.14 

8.50  1 

8.61 

8.00 

0.01 

0.40 

0.37 

0.78 

0.82 

5.58 

4.44 

1.01 

11.03  ■ 

10.50 

10.02 

10.00 

1.70 

0.26 

1.15 

3.11 

3.29 

7.74  i 

2.34 

1.37 

11.45  ; 

10.50 

10.08 

10.00 

0.70 

0.04 

0.13 

^0.44 

1.31 

2.46 

0.24 

6.47 

4.51 

i 

11.22  i 

11.00 

6.71 

10.00 

0.63 

0.05 

0.19 

0.52 

1.39 

1.65 

1.04 

4.01 

6.26 

11.31 

10.00 

5.05 

8.00 

Tr. 

0.39 

0.53 

1.19 

2.11 

2.47 

8.44 

1.81 

1.31 

11.56  ; 

10.50 

10.25 

10.00 

1.19 

0.19  j 

0.73 

2.11 

1.65 

8.44 

1.89 

1.38  1 

11.71  1 

10.50 

10.33 

10.00 

1.88 

0.43 

0.29 

0.89 

3.49 

3.29 

8.16  ' 

1.85 

1.81 

11.82 

10.51) 

10.01 

10.00 

1.90  ! 

1.50  ' 

0.22  I 

1.70 

5.32 

5.76 

6.20 

1.44 

1.27 

8.91 

6.50 

7.64 

6.00 

1 

0.18 

0.18  , 

0.52 

0.88 

0.82 

6.86  ' 

2.86 

0.73 

10.45  ' 

10.50 i 

9.72 

10.00 

0.70 

0.49 

0.12 

1.13 

2.44 

3.29 

5.50 

2.07 

0.85 

8.42 

8.50  1 

7.57 

8.00 

0.28 

0.12 

0.19 

0.63 

1.22 

1.23 

6.36 

3.33 

2.14 

11.83 

9.50 

9.69 

9.00 

0.82 

1.00' 

0.41 

1.59 

3.82 

4.11 

9.14 

1.32 

0.79 

11.25  1 

10.50 1 

10.46 

10.00 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 
quantity  of  inferior  quality. 


36 


Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAIi  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


<LI 

s 

3 

z 

c 

.2 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Sampled 


18904 

18900 

18901 
18903 

18588 

18006 

18843 

18672 

180186 

180187 

18845 

18909 

18405 

18406 

18881 

18883 

18884 

18290 

18291 
18341 

180086 

180094 

18322 

18323 

18324 

18325 
18764 


Hendrickson  & Dilatush,  Robbinsville,  N.  J. 

4-9  Potato  Manure  

Corn  Manure  No.  2 

Fish  Guano  for  Corn  

Truckers’  Manure  No.  2 

Heritage  & Bro.,  Mullica  Hill,  N.  J. 

Pancoast’s  XX  Revised  

S.  M.  Hess  & Bro.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

High  Grade  Potato  Grower  

Superior  Superphosphate  

Reliable  Superphosphate  

Hill  Bros.,  Flemington,  N.  J. 

Hill’s  No.  2 Phosphate,  Revised  

Hill’s  Standard  Phosphate,  Revised  

Hubbard  Fertilizer  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Hubbard’s  Excelsior  Mixture  2-10-0 

Hutchinson  & Rue,  Windsor,  N.  J. 

^Corn  Mixture  lJ^-15  

International  Seed  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

International  General  Phosphate  

International  Crop  Grower  

II.  B.  Kemp,  Long  Branch,  N.  J. 

Kemp’s  Corn  and  Truck  Fertilizer  

Kemp’s  Early  Truck  Grower  

Kemp’s  Potato  and  Vegetable  Fertilizer 

Keystone  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Keystone  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Keystone  Standard  Potato  Manure  

Keystone  Special  Truck  and  Corn  Manure  . . 

Keystone  Economy  Grain  Compound  

Keystone  Special  Pennsylvania  Grain  Mixture 
Wm.  Lancaster,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Grange  General  Manure  

1918  Grange  C Brand  Potato  Manure  

1918  Grange  D Brand  Potato  Manure  

1918  Grange  B Brand  Potato  Manure  

^1918  Grange  B Brand  Potato  Manure  


Robbinsville 

Robbinsville 

Robbinsville 

Robbinsville 

Mullica  Hill 

Englishtown 
Englishtown 
Cape  May  . . 

Flemington  . 
Flemington  . 

Englishtown 

Windsor  . . . 

i Salem  

j Salem  

i Long  Branch 
, Long  Branch 
Long  Branch 

Elm  

Elm  

! Sewell  

Ringoes  . . . . 
Califon  

Bridgeton  . . 

; Bridegton  . .. 
} Bridegton  . .. 
I Bridegton  . .. 
1 Bridegton  . . . 


^ According  to  formula  submitted  an  error  was  made  in  calculating  the  guarantee  for  available 
phosphoric  acid. 

2 Duplicate  sample. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


37 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

\s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Ava 

TJ 

C 

3 

C 

U. 

» i 

Guaranteed  S 1 

n> 

0.68 

1.22 

0.27 

0.94 

3 

.11 

3.29 

7 

.68 

3. 

03 

0.88 

11 

.59 

1 

11 

.00 

10 

.71 

9.00 

1.00 

0.13 

0.16 

0.36 

1 

.65 

1.65 

7 

.64 

3. 

66 

1.14 

12 

.44 

11 

.00  i 

11 

.30 

9.00 

0.55 

0.05 

0.25 

0.76 

1 

.61 

1.65 

9 

.54  ' 

3. 

,14 

3 . 04 

14 

.72 

' 11 

.00  i 

12 

.68 

9.00 

1.91 

0.05 

0.40 

1.59 

3 

.95 

4.10 

7 

.90 

2. 

58 

1.21 

11 

.69 

11 

.00  1 

10 

.48 

9.00 

2.61 

0.06 

0.53 

10.83 

4 

.03 

4.12 

6 

.56  : 

1, 

.95 

1.00 

9 

.51 

9 

.00 

8 

.51 

8.00 

0.28 

1.94 

0.61 

1.12 

3 

.95 

4.11 

7 

.06  i 

2. 

69 

2.03 

11 

.78 

11 

.00 

9 

.75 

1 

10.00 

0.67 

0.04 

0.26 

0.70 

1 

.67 

1.65 

5, 

.88 

4. 

83 

1.72 

12 

.43 

11 

.00 

10 

.71 

10.00 

1.00 

0.68 

0.19 

0.37 

2 

.24 

2.47 

6 

.90  1 

3. 

75 

0.99 

11 

.64 

11 

.00 

10 

.65 

10.00 

0.01 

0.20 

0.43 

0 

.64 

0.82 

6 

.56 

3. 

51 

2.37 

12 

.44 

11 

.00 

10 

.07 

10.00 

0.64 

0.16 

0.22 

0.48 

1 

.50 

1.65 

6, 

.18 

4. 

09 

1.54 

11 

.81 

11 

.00 

10 

.27 

10.00 

0.10 

0.47 

10.58 

1 

.15 

1.64 

6. 

.46 

4. 

76 

1.93 

13 

.15  1 

1 

11 

.00 

11, 

.22 

10.00 

0.75 

0.04 

0.09 

0.18 

1 

.06 

1.23 

3, 

.04 

6. 

83 

6.42 

16 

1 

.29 

9 

.87 

15.00 

0.66 

0.49 

0.09 

0.33 

1 

.57 

1.65 

5, 

.94  i 

4. 

47 

1.00 

11 

.41  ‘ 

11 

.OCf 

10, 

.41 

10.00 

0.26 

0.20 

0.19 

0.27 

0 

.92 

0.82 

6, 

.20  1 

4. 

09 

0.99 

11 

.28 

11 

.0(1 

10, 

.29 

10.00 

0.60 

0.15 

0.51 

0.99 

2 

.25 

2.47 

7, 

.00  ' 

2. 

77 

1.17 

10 

.94  ; 

10 

.50 

9, 

.77 

10.00 

0.54 

1.71 

0.29 

1.34 

3 

.88 

4.11 

8. 

.78 

1. 

65 

0.95 

11 

.38  ! 

10 

.50 

10. 

.43 

10.00 

1.78 

0.20 

0.42 

0.87 

3 

.27 

3.29 

8. 

.34 

2. 

42 

1.69 

12, 

.45 

10 

.50 

10, 

.76 

10.00 

0.11 

0.66 

10.64 

1 

.41 

1.64 

7, 

.66 

3. 

24 

0.82 

11. 

1 

.72  I 

11 

.00 

10, 

.90 

10.00 

1.07 

0.44 

0.82 

2 

.33 

2.46 

5. 

.98 

3. 

84 

0.97 

10, 

.79  ' 

12 

.00 

9, 

.82 

10.00 

0.26 

2.64 

0.28 

0.59 

3 

.77 

4.10 

8, 

.82 

1. 

68 

0.73 

11, 

.23  i 

11 

.00 

10. 

,50 

10.00 

0.06 

0.19 

^0.63 

0 

.88 

0.82 

5. 

.36 

3. 

71 

0.79 

9 

.86  1 

10 

.00 

9, 

.07 

9.00 

1.08 

0.55 

0.63 

2 

.26 

0.82 

6. 

.60 

4. 

56 

1.01 

12, 

.17 

13 

.00 

11, 

.16 

12.00 

0.10 

0.54 

0.32 

0 

.96 

0.82  ! 

3. 

.50 

8. 

35 

2.61 

14, 

.46 

13 

.00 

11. 

,85 

12.00 

0.73 

1.12 

0.38 

0.87 

3 

.10 

3.30  i 

8. 

.76 

1 . 

92 

0.61 

11. 

.29 

11 

.00 

10. 

.68 

10.00 

0.33 

1.12 

0.38 

0.84 

2 

.67 

2.46 

7, 

.38 

2 , 

59 

1.25 

11, 

.22  ' 

11 

.00 

9. 

.97 

10.00 

2.42 

0.55 

0.87 

3 

.84 

4.12 

8. 

.76  1 

2 .. 

12 

0.82 

11, 

.70 

11 

.00 

10. 

,88 

10.00 

0.34 

1.14 

0.13 

0.70 

2 

.31 

4.12 

6. 

.30 

3. 

45 

1.47  ' 

11, 

.22 

11 

.00 

9. 

,75  1 

10.00 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

• Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality, 
amount  of  inferior  quality. 


Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 


38 


Bulletin  331 

CO>IMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


S 

c 

o 

ca 

W 


18100 

18724 

180020 

18822  I 

18870  I 
180090  ' 
180047  j 

18231  ’ 

18524 

18505 

18580 

180250 

18306 

18697 

180217 

18249  : 

18250  I 

18251 
18379 
18418  I 

18032  I 
18059  I 
18817  I 

18823  I 

18826  i 

I 

18501 
18515  1 

18950 

180095 

180057 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Listers  Agricultural  Chemical  Works,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Listers  Superior  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  1916  

Listers  Excelsior  Guano,  1916  

Listers  Crescent  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  1916  

Brakeley’s  Special  Mixture,  1916  

A.  B.  Special  Mixture 

Listers  Plant  Food,  1916  

Listers  Ground  Bone  and  Tankage,  Acidulated  

Locke  & Black,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

Atkinson’s  No.  1 H.  G.  Onion  and  Early  Truck  Fertilizer  with- 
out Potash  

Atkinson’s  No.  3 Special  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  without  Potash 
Atkinson’s  No.  5 Special  Early  Tomato  and  Asparagus  Grower. 

without  Potash  

Atkinson’s  No.  3j4  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  without  Potash  .... 
Frederick  Ludlam  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Ludlam’s  Sickle  Fertilizer  No.  3,  1916  

Mapes  Formula  and  Peruvian  Guano  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Mapes’  5 Per  Cent  Ammonia  Special  

Mapes’  General  Crop,  1916  Brand  

Mapes’  Top  Dresser,  Half  Strength,  1916  

Martin  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  I’a. 

Martin’s  Pure  Dissolved  Animal  Matter  ’. 

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  4-8  

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  3-8  

Martin’s  Crop  Producer  

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  2-8  

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  h'reehold,  N.  J. 

Triangle  Brand  5-10-0  

Triangle  Brand  4-10-0  

Triangle  Brand  8-6-0  

Triangle  Brand  2-11-0  

Triangle  Brand  1-12-0  

Jos.  R.  Moore,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

J.  R.  Moore’s  2-10-0  Sweet  Potato  Manure  

J.  R.  Moore’s  4-10-0  Potato  Manure  

Nassau  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Common  Sense  Fertilizer,  1916  

Old  Hickory,  1916  

Buckwheat  Special  


Where  Sa.mpled 


Freehold  

Lakewood  

Three  Bridges  

Freehold  

Bordentown  

Califon  

Far  Hills  

Blackwood  

Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Mullica  Hill  

Caldwell  

Sewell  

Germania  

Sussex  

Blue  Anchor 

Blue  Anchor 

Blue  Anchor 

Bridegton  

Swedesboro  

Englishtown  

Mt.  Holly  

Freeehold  

Freeehold  

Marlboro  

Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Bound  Brook  

New  Germantown.  . 
White  House  Sta... 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing:  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


39 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 

Phosphoric  Acid 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Found  < 

Guaranteed  ^ 

1 

.57 

0 

71 

0.38 

0 

46 

3 

12 

3 

29 

8 

.14 

2 

.18 

1 

.40 

i 

1 

.72 

11 

.00 

10 

.32 

10.00 

1 

.10 

0 

14 

0.62 

0 

79 

2 

65 

2 

47 

7 

.82 

2 

.75 

2 

.68 

' 13 

.25 

11 

.00 

10 

.57 

10.00 

0 

.70 

0 

32 

0.13 

0 

56 

1 

71 

1 

65 

7 

.30 

3 

.61 

1 0 

.95 

11 

.86 

11 

.00 

10 

.91 

10.00 

1 

30 

0.44 

2 

12 

3. 

86 

4 

11 

5 

.02 

1 

.94 

3 

.19 

10 

.15 

9 

.00 

6 

.96 

8.00 

1 

.49 

1 

36 

0.03 

0 

98 

3 

86 

4 

53 

7 

.28 

2 

.71 

1 

.33 

11 

.32 

11, 

.00 

9 

.99 

10.00 

0 

01 

0.18 

^0 

65 

0. 

84 

0 

82 

5 

.40 

4 

.95 

1 

.62 

11 

.97 

11 

.00 

10 

.35 

10.00 

0 

32 

0.54 

1 

91 

2. 

77 

2 

67 

2 

.52 

3 

.97 

8 

.05. 

14 

.54 

12 

.00 

6 

.49 

1 

.77 

0, 

.08 

0.44 

1. 

11 

3. 

40 

3. 

,70 

7 

.98 

0, 

.59 

1. 

.32 

9 

.89 

9 

.00 

8 

.57 

8.00 

0. 

.09 

0.64 

0. 

72 

1. 

45 

1, 

,65 

8 

.20 

2 

.90 

2 

.03 

13 

.13 

12 

.00 

11 

.10 

11.00 

2 

.11 

0, 

.06 

1.10 

11. 

11 

4. 

38 

4. 

,32 

6 

.62 

1, 

.93 

1, 

,22 

9 

.77 

9 

.00 

8 

.55 

j 8.00 

0 

.92 

0, 

.03 

0.25 

0. 

30 

1. 

50 

1, 

.65 

5 

.60 

2, 

.26 

1. 

.29 

9 

.15 

9 

.00 

7 

.86 

8.00 

1 

.12 

0. 

,23 

0.45 

0. 

53 

2. 

33 

2. 

47 

7 

.22 

2 , 

.67 

2. 

,97 

12 

.86 

11, 

,00 

9 

.89 

10.00 

4 

.00 

0. 

.01 

0.01 

20. 

41 

4. 

43 

4. 

12 

2 

.80 

5, 

.35 

3, 

.57 

11 

.72 

10, 

.00 

8 

.15 

8.00 

1 

.27 

0. 

.01 

0.18 

20. 

37 

1. 

83 

1. 

65 

2 

.82 

4, 

.65 

4, 

,04 

11, 

,51 

10. 

.00 

7, 

.47 

8.00 

4 

.70 

0.31 

0. 

29 

5. 

30 

4. 

94 

1 

.08 

1, 

.49 

2, 

.28 

4, 

.85 

4, 

.00 

2, 

.57 

2.50 

0, 

.33 

0.43 

0. 

94 

1. 

7C 

1. 

65 

8 

.72 

3. 

.08 

1, 

.90 

13, 

.70 

12. 

,00 

11 , 

.80 

1 

.40 

1 , 

.30 

0.12 

30. 

34 

3. 

16 

3. 

30 

7 

.10 

2, 

,49 

1. 

,43 

11. 

.02 

8. 

.00 

9, 

.59 

8.00 

0, 

.82 

0.42 

30. 

57 

1. 

81 

2. 

47 

6 

.78 

3, 

,47 

1. 

,74 

11, 

.99  i 

8. 

.00 

10, 

.25 

8.00 

0 

.21 

0, 

.05 

0.17 

30. 

36 

0. 

79 

1. 

03 

7 

.54! 

3. 

,85 

2. 

.33 

13. 

.72  1 

11. 

,00 

11, 

.39 

10.00 

0 

.60 

0, 

.06 

0.11 

30. 

77 

1. 

54 

1. 

65 

6 

.10 

2, 

.23 

2, 

69 

11, 

.02 

9. 

.00 

8, 

.33 

8.00 

1 

.74 

1. 

.00 

0.06 

1. 

21 

4. 

01  1 

4. 

11 

7 

.10 

2. 

,94 

2. 

,32 

12, 

.36 

11. 

,00 

10, 

,04 

10.00 

1 

.51 

0. 

,79 

0.23 

0. 

92 

3. 

45 

3. 

29 

8 

.06  [ 

3. 

13 

1. 

70 

12. 

OS 

00 

11. 

,00 

11, 

.19 

10.00 

5 

.80 

0. 

,06 

0.16 

0. 

68 

6. 

70 

6. 

58 

6 

.64 

1. 

,20 

1. 

67 

9. 

,51 

7, 

,00 

7. 

.84 

6.00 

0 

.49  1 

0. 

,08 

0.34 

0. 

O 

00 

1. 

71 

1. 

64 

8, 

.58  i 

2. 

,52 

3. 

,49 

14, 

.59 

12. 

.00 

11, 

,10 

11.00 

... 

0. 

,04 

0.32 

0. 

66 

1. 

02 

0. 

82 

5 

.22 

5. 

,93 

5. 

,30 

16, 

,45 

13. 

,00 

11, 

,15 

12.00 

1 

1 

.19  i 

0. 

,02 

0.16 

0. 

15 

1. 

1 

52  i 

1. 

65 

8, 

.20 

2. 

,30 

0. 

54 

11. 

,04 

11. 

00 

10, 

,50 

10.00 

3 

.17 

0. 

.01 

0.02 

0. 

16 

3. 

36 

3. 

29 

8 

.42 

2, 

,34 

1 . 

01 

11 , 

,77  1 

11. 

00 

10, 

,76 

10.00 

0 

.68 

0, 

.33 

0.10 

0. 

52 

1. 

63 

1. 

65 

7 

.68 

3. 

31 

0. 

74 

11. 

i 

73  1 

11. 

00 

10. 

99 

10.00 

. . . 

0, 

,06 

0.08 

*0. 

62 

0. 

76 

0. 

82 

5, 

.66 

4. 

,27  1 

1. 

53 

11. 

,46  1 

11. 

00 

9. 

,93 

10.00 

0. 

,19 

0.29 

0. 

45 

0. 

93 

0. 

82 

5. 

.64  1 

3. 

04  1 

0. 

87 

9. 

55  1 

9. 

00 

8. 

68 

8.  op 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 
amount  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  amount  of 
inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


40 


Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


u 

B 

3 

c 

.2 

o 

OQ 


18913 

18915 

18916 

18917 

18766 

180061 

18948 

18062 

18061 

18815 

18448 

18908 

18869 

180043 

18594 

180155 

180156 

180157 

18030 

18836 

18563 

18565 

18617 

18616 

18739 

18937 

18771 

18828 

18930 

18931 

18856 

18857 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Albert  Nelson,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

Nelson’s  Special  G & G Guano  

Nelson’s  Special  Potato  Grower 

Nelson’s  Superior  Potato  Grower  

Nelson’s  R & W Guano  

Patapsco  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Patapsco  Truckers’  Delight  

Philadelphia  Guano  Works,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1918  Corn  and  Vegetable  Manure  

1918  Grain  Superphosphate  

Rasin  Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Rasin’s  Potato  and  Vegetable  Ammoniated  Superphosphate 

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  Guano  

Rasin’s  Potato  and  Truck  Compound  

Rasin’s  Empire  Superphosphate  

Rasin’s  Special  Crop  Preparation  

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  and  Bone  Guano  

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  Mixture  

Reading  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

High  Grade  Truck  Food  

Reading  Chemical  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

Pennant  Winner  

Reading  Soil  Builder  

Reading  Royal  Fish  Guano  

F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Royster’s  Curfew  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

*Royster’s  Curfew  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Royster’s  Flamingo  Ammoniated  Superphosphate 

Royster’s  Abundant  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Royster’s  Penguin  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Royster’s  Gazelle  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Royster’s  Landmark  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Royster’s  Royal  Blue  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  

Royster’s  C.  B.  Fish  Mixture  

Royster’s  Innovation  Ammoniated  Phosphate  

Ruckman  Bros.,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 

5 and  8 Fertilizer  

Special  Grain  Grower  

Schanck,  Hutchinson  & Field,  Hightstown,  N.  J. 

S.  H.  & F.  Corn  Mixture  

S.  H.  & F.  Potato  and  Vegetaljlc  Compound  


Where  Sampled 


Nelsonville  

Nelsonville  

' Nelsonville  

I Nelsonville  

j Red  Bank  

! Annandale  

j Bound  Brook  

j Edgewater  Park  . . . 
I Edgewater  Park  . . . 

I Freehold  

I Bridgeton  

j Windsor  

i Burlington  

Neshanic  

Pedricktown  

Blairstown  

Blairstown  

Blairstown  

Hightstown  

Tennent  

Swedesboro  

Swedesboro  

Vineland  

Vineland  

Keansburg 

Millstone  

Red  Bank  

Tennent  

New  Brunswick  . . . 
New  Brunswick  . . . 

Hightstown  

Hightstown  


Duplicate  sample. 


41 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 


COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

\s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water  I 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Found  ^ 

CB 

liable 

1 

c 

2 

el 

3 

O 

0.69 

0.34 

0.52 

1.55 

1.65 

5.72 

3.59 

2.62 

11.93 

11.00 

9.31 

10.00 

2.34 

0.04 

0.24 

0.61 

3.23 

3.29 

6.28 

1.65 

1.02 

8.95 

9.00 

7.93 

8.00 

2.54 

0.06 

0.63 

1.00 

4.23 

4.12 

6.34 

1.62 

0.93 

8.89 

9.00 

7.96 

8.00 

0.05 

0.39 

0.45 

0.89 

0.82 

4.24 

4.21 

3.01 

11.46 

10.00 

8.49 

9.00 

1.12 

0.40 

0.31 

0.49 

2.32 

2.47 

7.20 

2.88 

1.58 

11.66 

11.00 

10.08 

10.00 

0.43 

0.39 

’ 0.79 

1.61 

1.64 

6.30 

3.18 

0.64 

10.12 

11.00 

9.48 

10.00 

0.47 

0.38 

0.35 

1.20 

0.82 

4.12 

7.75 

1.29 

13.16 

13.00 

11.87 

12.00 

2.22 

0.30 

0.81 

3.33 

3.29 

6.12 

1.85 

0.54 

8.51 

9.00 

7.97 

8.00 

0.06 

0.59 

0.92 

1.56 

1.65 

5.98  ! 

4.98 

2.37 

13.33 

12.0-0 

10.96 

11.00 

2.59 

0.05 

0.05 

0.54 

3.23 

3.29 

7.74 

2.25 

1.18 

11.17 

11.00 

9.99 

10.00 

1.60 

0.0-5 

0.30 

^0.41 

j 2.36 

2.47 

7.16 

2.55 

1.37 

11.08 

11.00 

9.71 

10.00 

0.67 

0.36 

0.54 

1 1.57 

1.65 

7.52 

3.90 

1.87 

13.29 

11.00 

11.42 

10.00 

.... 

0.08 

0.77 

0.74 

1.59 

1.65 

5.94 

4.80 

3.29 

14.03 

12.00 

10.74 

11.00 

0.03 

0.45 

0.38 

! 0.86 

0.82 

7.76 

2.82 

1.84 

12.42 

11.00 

10.58 

10.00 

2.06 

! 0.78 

1 

0.44 

3.28 

3.29 

9.44 

2.85 

1.92 

14.21 

13.00 

12.29 

12.00 

2.13 

0. 16 

0. 13 

2.42 

2.46 

6.56 

4.38 

0.65 

11.59 

10.94 

10.00 

0.87 

0.36 

■^O.  19 

1.42 

1.64 

4.50 

5.88 

1.34 

11.72 

10.38 

10.00 

0.76 

0.02 

1 0.11 

30.18 

1.07 

1.03 

6.94 

5.15 

1.59 

13.68 

12.09 

12.00 

1.49 

0.53 

0.78 

1 2.80 

3 . 29 

5.50 

2.42 

1.33 

9.25 

8.5C 

7.92 

8.00 

1.58 

0.43 

1.16 

3.17 

3.29 

4.82 

3.38 

1.31 

9.51 

8.50 

8.20 

8.00 

1.11 

0.51 

0.46 

2.08 

2.06 

9.64 

2.52 

1.16 

13.32 

12.50 

12.16 

12.00 

; 2.35 

0.27 

1.26 

3.88 

4.11 

8.62 

1.49 

0.82 

10.93 

10.50 

10.11 

10.00 

0.82 

0.34 

30.57 

1.73 

1.65 

6.46 

3.37 

1.65 

11.48 

10.50 

9.83 

10.00 

1 0.97 

0.83 

0.71 

2.51 

2.47 

6.56 

2.83 

1.54 

10.93 

10.50 

9.39 

10.00 

i 1.56 

0.41 

1.36 

i 3.33 

3.29 

7.64 

2.31 

1.49 

11.44 

10.50 

9.95 

10.00 

0.06 

0.50 

30.40 

0.96 

0.82 

5.64 

4.26 

1.65 

11.55 

10.50 

9.90 

10.00 

0.81 

0.15 

0.62 

1.58 

1.65 

5.14 

2.95 

1.10 

9.19 

8.50 

8.09 

8.00 

1.11 

0.30 

1.07 

2.48 

2.47 

5.60 

2.49 

1.54 

9.63 

8.50 

8.09 

8.0-0 

2.34 

0.17 

0.24 

1.36 

4.11 

4.11 

6.16 

3.01 

2.78 

11.95 

10.00 

9.17 

! 

8.00 

0.88 

0.38 

0.23 

0.80 

2.29 

2.47 

6.82 

3.74 

2.44 

13.00 

11.00 

10.56 

, 10.00 

0.98 

0.21 

0.29 

1.48 

1.65 

6.56 

2.23 

0.50 

9.29 

9.00 

8.79 

! 8.00 

2.60 

0.02 

0.18 

0.33 

3.13 

1 3.29 

8.60 

: 1.63 

0.98 

11.21 

11.00 

10.23 

1 10.00 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 
amount  of  inferior  quality. 


42 


Bulletin  331 

COIVOLERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


0.^ 

S 

3 

z 

c 

_o 


18292 

18293 
180074 
180075 

18042 

18539 

18497 

18498 

18547 

18371 

18443 

18386 

18584 
18531 
18530 
18582 

18585 
18528 

18760 

18761 
18763 

18509 

18553 

18558 

18560 

18561 
18832 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Whkrb  Samplbo 


Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Elkton,  Md. 

W.  R,  Hackett’s  No.  2 Special  Corn  and  Tomato  . . 
\V.  R.  Hackett’s  No.  3 Special  Tomato  Manure  . . . 

Scott’s  Ammoniated  Base  

Scott’s  Crop  Grower  

M.  L.  Shoemaker  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Swift-Sure  Phosphate  for  Tobacco  and  General  Use 
Swift-Sure  Guano  for  Tomatoes,  Truck  and  Corn  . 
Harry  L.  Sickel,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

C.  Sickel’s  4-10  for  White  Potatoes  

A.  Sickel’s  High  Grade  White  Potato  Fertilizer  ... 
South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange,  Woodstown,  N.  J. 

A Exchange  H.  G.  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer  ... 
C.  Exchange  General  Use  Fertilizer  


Quinton  . . , 
Quinton  . . . 
Frenchtown 
Frenchtown 

Moorestown 
Vineland  . , 

Vineland  . . 
Vineland  . , 

Daretown  . 
Mickleton  . 


1 Exchange  High  Grade  Potato  Fertilizer 


Bridegton 


I C I Exchange  General  Use  Fertilizer 


Bridegton 


I F I Exchange  Special  Asparagus  Fertilizer  

:C:  Exchange  General  Use  Fertilizer  

:F:  Exchange  Special  Asparagus  Fertilizer  

A Exchange  X H.  G.  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer  

C Exchange  X General  Use  Fertilizer  

Special  Early  Tomato  Fertilizer  

Standard  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 


Mullica  Hill 
Woodstown 
Woodstown 
Mullica  Hill 
Mullica  Hill 
Woodstown 


3-10  

4-10  

5-10  

Swift  & Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Swift’s  General  Crop  Fertilizer  

Swift’s  Jersey  White  Potato  Grower 
Swift’s  Jersey  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer 

Swift’s  Clay  Soil  Special  

Swift’s  Truck  and  Potato  Fertilizer  . 
Swift’s  Special  Baltimore  Formula  . . 


Bridgeton  . 
Bridgeton  . 
Bridgeton  . 

Swedesboro 
Swedesboro 
Swedesboro 
Swedesboro 
Swedesboro 
Tennent  . . 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 
COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


43 


Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

V 

c5 

u 

W 

*3 

in 

2 

'5 

o 

S 

! 

i 

c 

s 

u 

o 

3 

3 ^ 

1 

! .H 
c 

rt 

o 

u 

3 

3 

3 ^ 

"1 

Found  1 

•a 

4> 

V 

C 

es 

tm 

a 

3 

o 

V 

"S 

.s 

<u 

15 

G' 

.5.1 

u C 

jj 

3 

Pound 

T3 

<U 

V 

c 

2 

« 

3 

0 

Aval 

liable 

•3 

4) 

U 

*■> 

c 

6 

< 

O V 

c w 

"cS 

3 

3 

C/)< 

3 

■5 

15 

■3 

C 

3 

e 

C3 

(fi 

< 

<§ 

o 

o 

H 

o 

CO 

c 

1 H 

0 

* H 

0 

LL 

3 

c 

0.08 

0.72 

1.71 

2.51 

2.50 

1 

7.40 

3.66 

7.38 

18.44 

1 16.00 

11.06 

16.00 

0.10 

1.09 

2.28 

3.47 

3.69 

7.18 

2.77 

3.66 

13.61 

1 15.00 

; 9.95 

, 13.00 

0.03 

0.67 

0.83 

1.53 

1.65 

9.80 

2.91 

1.56 

14.27 

1 14.00 

12.71 

; 12.00 

0.06 

0.61 

10.68 

1.35 

1.65 

6.90 

2.25 

1.00 

10.15 

10.00 

1 9.15 

!| 

i 8.00 

0.69 

0.01 

0.87 

! 1.51 

3.08 

3.29 

7.80 

' 3.75 

2.96 

14.51 

1 

12.001 

'1 

i 11.55 

i 9.00 

0.57  1 

0.02 

0.57 

0.79 

1.95 

1.65 

4.54 

: 4.72 

4.68 

13.94 

10.00 

9.26 

8.00 

0.76  ! 

1.50  ! 

0.32 

0.44 

3.02 

3.30 

9.10 

1.31 

1.01 

11.42 

10.00  * 

10.41 

i 10.00 

0.82 

1 

0.71 

0.31 

10.54 

2,38 

2.47 

7.76 

2.19 

1 1.58 

11.53 

10.00 

9.95 

10.00 

2.27  ; 

0.28 

1.20 

3.75  1 

4.11 

8.72 

2.01 

1.05 

‘ 11.78 

11.00 

10.73 

10.00 

0.81 

0.43  ; 

1.20 

2,44 

2.46 

7.60 

! 2.63 

1.24 

11.47 

11.00 

10.23 

10.00 

2.03 

0.18 

1.22 

3.43  1 

3.29 

7.82 

1.94* 

1.10 

10. 8f 

1 11.00 

9.76 

10.00 

0.68 

0.08 

2.04 

2.80 

2.47 

7.64 

2.10 

1.10 

10.84 

11.00 

9.74 

10.00 

1.40 

0.36 

2.91 

4.67  1 

4.93 

6.50 

2.18 : 

1.27 

9.95 

9.00 

8.68 

8.00 

0.90 

0.88 

0.11 

0.74 

2.63  ; 

2.45 

7.44 

2.75 

1,58 

11.77 

1 11.00  J 

i 10.19 

10.00 

1.64 

1.87 

0.11 

1.13 

4.75 

4.90 

8.00 

2.24  1 

0.89  1 

11.13 

9.00 

10.24 

8.00 

2.33 

0.01 

0.19 

1.12 

3,65 

4.12 

9.82 

1.22  ' 

0.51  j 

11.55 

11.00 

11.04  1 

10.00 

1.44 

0.07 

0.03 

0.75 

2.29 

2.46 

9.18 

2.17 

0.90 

12.25 

11.00 

1 11.35  ! 

10.00 

2.61 

0.22 

1 

0.11 

2.29 

5.23 

5.33 

6.32 

2.24 

2.20 

10.76 

9.00  i 

8.56  1 

8.00 

1.44 

1 

0.01 

0.28 

0.61 

2.34 

2.47 

8.88 

2,28  ' 

0.66 

11.82 

11.16 

10.00 

Tr. 

1.32 

0.33 

0.65 

2.30 

3.29 

9.92 

1 .58  1 

0.60  i 

12.10 



11.50  1 

10.00 

2.76 

0.02  ! 

0.14 

’ 0.72 

3.64 

4.12 

9.24 

1.62 

0.83  : 

11.69 

1 10.86  i 

10.00 

0.23 

0.83  1 

1 

1.47 

2.53 

2.47 

5.58  1 

3.20 

1.57 

1 

10.35 

9.00 

8.78 

9.00 

0.20 

1.35 

0.25 

1.53 

3.33 

3.29 

5.34  • 

2.38 

1,09 

8.81 

8.00 

7.72  i 

8.00 

0.87 

0.04 

0.50 

1.41 

1.65 

5.02  : 

2.80 

0,63  : 

8.45 

8.00  1 

7.82  , 

8.00 

0.30 

1.17 

0.04 

*1.09 

2.60 

1.65 

6.30 

2.95 

1 .35  i 

10.60 

12.00 

9.25  1 

12.00 

0.25 

1.54  1 

0.10 

1.26 

3.15 

3.29 

6.00  I 

3.00 

1 .10  ! 

10.10 

8.00 

9.00  i 

8.00 

0.26 

1.85 

0.06 

1.16 

3.33 

3.29 

6.68 

2.80 

1 .50  ' 

10.98 

10.00  1 

9.48 

10.00 

^Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  offsets  amount  of 
inferior  quality. 


44 


Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


(U 

£ 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Sampled 


B 

3 


o 


18069 

18861 

18862 

18097 

180207 

18827 

18169 

180205 

180206 

18166 

18171 

18789 

18794 

180048 

18978 

180038 

18427 

18654 

18653 

18326 

18337 

18780 

180063 

180066 

180068 

18134 

18942 

18971 
18944 

18968 

18969 

18972 
18998 


Swift  & Co.,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

Holly  Harrison  Formula  Fertilizer  

Swift’s  Special  Crop  Grower  

Swift’s  Special  Pride  of  Jersey  Fertilizer 
Swift’s  Long  Island  Favorite  Fertilizer  . 

*Swift’s  Long  Island  Favorite  Fertilizer  . . 

Swift’s  Special  Harrison  Formula  

Swift’s  Truck  and  Potato  Fertilizer  .... 

Swift’s  Special  Fertilizer  for  Grass  

Swift’s  Special  Fertilizer  for  Corn  

Swift’s  Special  Top  Dressing  

Swift’s  Special  Long  Island  Fertilizer  . . 

Flolly  Special  Harrison  Formula  

Swift  Pure  Truck  and  Potato  Fertilizer  . 

Swift’s  Wheat  and  Rye  Grower  

Swift’s  Diamond  C Grain  Fertilizer 

Swift’s  Three,  Ten,  Naught  

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Long  Island  Special  4-10-0  

Special  Mixture  No.  3 (Formula  stated) 
Special  Mixture  No.  4 (Formula  stated) 

Fish  Guano  

7 Per  Cent  Guano  

Dugan’s  5-10-0  

Thomas’  Triumph  Manvire  

Thomas’  Wheat  and  Corn  Guano  

Raw  and  Acidulated  Rone  

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Borden’s  Fish  Mixture  

Sweet  Potato  and  Corn  

Corn  Special  

Oats  Mixture  

Si^ecial  Mixture  No.  108  

4-8  Potato  

Bone  and  Tankage  

Special  Grain  


Mt.  Holly  

Jamesburg  

Jamesburg  

Marlboro  

Greystone  Park  . . . 

Marlboro  

Fish  House  

Greystone  Park  . . . 
Greystone  Park  . . . 

Fish  House  

Fish  House  

Pennington  

Mt.  Holly  

Far  Hills  

Martinsville  

Gladstone  

New  Lisbon  

Moorestown  

Moorestown  

Bridgeton  

Westville  

Moprestov/n  

Barbertown  

Barbertown  

Barbertown  

Beverly  

Middlebush  

Pennington  

Middlebiish  

Pennington  

Pennington  

Pennington  

Hopewell  


Duplicate  sample. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAL  EEKTIJAZEKS 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen 


Phosphoric  Acid 


As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

^s  Soluble  Organic 
Matter 

As  Insoluble  Organic 
Matter 

Total  Pound 

Total  Guaranteed  1 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Avai 

i 

■o 

c 

3 

O 

U. 

Guaranteed  S 

(t  ' 

0.35 

1.74 

0.17 

0.75 

3.01 

3.29 

1 

6.96 

I 

3.33 

1.79 

12.08 

10.00 

10.29 

! 

10.00 

0.13 

0.76 

0.16 

0.31 

1.36 

1.65 

6.50 

3.60 

1.48 

11.58 

10.00 

10.10 

10.00 

0.15 

2.41 

0.33 

0.93 

3.82 

4.11 

6.26 

2 . 08 

1-.20 

9.54 

8.00 

8.34 

8.00 

2.21 

0.35 

0.92 

3.48 

4.11 

7.12 

3.02 

1.91 

12.05 

10.00 

10.14 

10.00 

2.27 

0.43 

0.96 

3.66 

4.11 

7.28  ’ 

' 2.78 

2.20 

12.26 

10.00 

10.06 

10.00 

0.15 

1.94 

0.12 

0.96- 

3.17 

3.29 

7.98 

1.87 

0.99 

10.84 

10.00 

9.85 

10.00 

0.46 

1.96 

0.11 

0.87 

3.40 

3.29 

5.42 

2.60 

1.45 

9.47 

8.00 

8.02 

8.00 

4.56 

0.06 

1.00 

1.02 

6.64 

6.55 

3.40 

2.12 

1.59 

7.11 

6.00 

5.52 

6.00 

0.41 

1.61 

0.20  , 

0.70 

2.92 

2.75 

8.54 

2.86 

1.96 

13.36 

12.00 

11.40 

12.00 

2.62 

2.06 

1.04 

1.42 

7.14 

8.23 

4.46 

1.33 

1.94 

7.73 

5.00 

5.79 

5.00 

Tr. 

2.91 

0.60  ' 

1.25 

4.76 

4.94 

6.04 

2.27 

2.00 

10.31 

8.00 

8.31 

8.00 

1.39 

0.39 

0.57 

0.79 

3.14 

3.29 

8.22 

2.17 

1.88 

12.27 

10.00 

10.39 

10.00 

2.02 

0.20 

0.21 

0.79 

3.22 

3.29 

5.36 

2.74 

1.60 

9.70 

8.00 

8.10 

8.00 

Tr. 

0.29 

0.22 

1.03 

1.54 

1.65 

2.78 

3.79 

2.24 

8.81 

8.00 

6.57 

8.00 

0.54 

0.03 

0.13 

0.20 

0.90 

0.82 

6.32 

2.55 

0.58 

9.45 

8.00 

8.87 

8.00 

0.56 

0.06 

0.28 

1.19 

2.09 

2.47 

4.28  1 

4.06 

2.68 

n.02 

10.00 

8.34 

10.00 

1.21 

1.20 

0.18 

0.48 

3.07 

3.25 

6.14 

3.61 

1.22 

10.97 

10.50 

9.75 

10.00 

1 .32  1 

0.17 

0.42 

1.29 

3.20 

8.36 

1.91 

1.42 

11.69 

10.27 

i 

0.04 

0.47 

0.78 

1.29 

4.16 

7.73 

6.67 

18.56 

11.89 

0.90 

2.26 

0.17 

0.62 

3.95 

4.10 

9.00 

2.21 

1.26 

12.47 

10.50 

11.21 

10.00 

1.84 

2.49 

0.34 

0.83 

5.50 

5.75 

8.20 

1.15 

0.44 

9.79 

8.50 

9.35 

8.00 

0.70 

1.52 

0.23 

1.46 

3.91 

4.10 

9.48 

1.83 

1.26 

12.57 

11.31 

10.00 

0.48 

0.16 

0.40 

1.04 

0.82 

6.60 

3.86 

2.25 

12.71 

10.50 

10.46 

10.00 

0.85 

0.20 

0.49 

1.54 

1.65 

6.20 

3.41 

1.72 

11.33 

10.50 

9.61 

lO.O'O 

0.04 

0.61 

1.86 

2.51 

1.65 

1.20 

12.26 

9.35 

22.81 

17.00 

13.46 

1.83 

0.15 

0.72 

1.39 

4.09 

4.10 

3.72 

2.42 

0.95 

7.09 

6.00 

6.14 

5.00 

0.55 

0.05 

0.33 

0.64 

1.57 

1.64 

8.42 

3.31 

1.29 

13.02 

11.00 

11.73 

10.00 

1.50 

0.07 

0.47 

0.33 

2.37 

2.47 

9.08 

2.68 

1.61 

13.37 

12.00 

11.76 

11.00 

0.21 

0.03 

0.19 

10.39 

0.82 

0.82 

6.88 

4.30 

0.63 

11.81 

11.00 

11.18 

10.00 

1.21 

0.34 

10.40 

1.95 

2.05 

4.56 

5.86 

1.50 

11.92 

11.00 

10.42 

10.00 

1.58  ! 

0.05 

0.50 

10.92 

3.05 

3.28 

5.90 

3.62 

1.33 

10.85 

9.00 

9.52 

8.00 

0.26  ' 

0.13 

0.83 

1.23 

2.45 

2.06 

2.78 

6.61 

5.70 

15.09 

9.00 

9.39 

8.00 

0.50 

0.03 

0.31 

0.49 

1.33 

1.64 

6.86 

5.15 

1.57 

13.58 

10.00 

12.01 

9.00 

45 


Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


46  Bulletin  331 

COMMERCIAL  FERTUilZERS 
' Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


18064 

18075 

18128 

18236 

18235 

18270 

18299 

180166 

18272 

18468 

18487 

18543 

18647 

180008 

180028 

18068 

18865 

18047 

18048 

18519 

18772 

18859 

18083 

18896 

18157 


18248 

18367 

18278 

18596 

18568 

18991 

18990 

18989 


I 

Manufacturer  and  Brand 


j F.  W.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1918  No.  2 Potato  and  Truck  Manure 

1918  No.  1 Potato  and  Truck  Manure  

Long  Island  Trucker  

1918  General  Crop  Grower  

1918  Fish  and  Tankage  

1918  Lightning  Guano  .* 

1918  Fish  Manure  

1918  Corn  Mixture  

Grain  Manure  

1918  Raw  and  Acidulated  Animal  Compound  

1918  N-2  Sweet  Potato  Manure  

1918  Potato  and  Vegetable  Manure  

High  Grade  Fish  and  Truck  Guano  

Wheat  Grower  

1917  Potato  and  Vegetable  Manure  

J.  E.  Tygert  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Tygert’s  Great  Advancer  Phosphate,  1916  

Tygert’s  Ammoniated  Fertilizer — A 

Tygert’s  Ammoniated  Fertilizer — A A 

Tygert’s  Ammoniated  Fertilizer — AAA  

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  Citj'. 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Truckers’  Mixture  without  Potash  

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  20th  Century  Potato  Manure  without  Potash.... 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  for  All  Crops 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  H.  G.  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  

C & B XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Potato  Manure  without  Potash 
V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Double  Owl  Brand  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer 

without  Potash  

West  Jersey  Marl  & Transportation  Co.,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

Brand  4-10-0  

Brand  5-10-0  

Brand  3-10-0  

Brand  2-10-0  

J.  R.  WyckofF,  Princeton  Junction,  N.  J. 

Wyckoflf’s  Special  Formula  

Wyckoff’s  Special  Harrison  Formula  

Wyckoff’s  Special  Corn  Grower 

Wyckoff’s  Three,  Ten,  Naught 


j Where  Sampi.bi> 


Edgewater  Park  . . . 

Beverly  

Beverly  

Blackwood  

I Blackwood  

I Westville  

Glassboro  

! Morristown  

Westville  

Bridgeton  

Swedesboro  . 

Bridgeton  

i Moorestown  

Skillman  

Bernardsville  

Mt.  Holly  

Burlington  

. Mt.  Holly  

I Mt.  Holly  

Swedesboro  

Moorestown  

Jamesburg  

Beverly  

Cranbury  

Beverly  

Grenloch  

Thorofare  

Gloucester  

Swedesboro  

Princeton  Junction. 
Princeton  Junction. 
Princeton  Junction. 
Princeton  Junction. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers 

COMMERCIAIi  FERTILIZERS 


47 


Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen  ,!  Phosphoric  Acid 


.‘\s  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

.\s  Soluble  Organic  j 

Matter  | 

1 

As  Insoluble  Organic  1 
Matter  ! 

1 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

1 Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

, 

1 

1 

Total  Guaranteed 

Avail 

•a 

c 

3 

0 

u. 

Guaranteed  ^ i 

0 

21 

0 

76 

0.51 

0.93 

2 

41 

2 

.46 

5. 

,14 

4. 

84 

1. 

70 

11 

.68 

11. 

00 

9. 

,98 

10.00 

0 

47 

0 

86 

0.21 

0.53 

2 

07 

3 

.30 

7. 

,10 

3. 

63 

0. 

,83 

11 

.56 

11. 

00 

10. 

,73 

10.00 

2 

50 

0.60 

0.92 

4 

02 

4 

.12 

8. 

,72 

2. 

08 

0. 

89 

11 

.69 

11. 

00 

( 10. 

,80 

10.00 

1 

07 

0.44 

0.89 

2 

40 

2 

.46 

7. 

,28 

3. 

71 

0. 

90 

11 

.89 

11. 

00 

! 10. 

99 

10.00 

1 

03 

0.59 

1.23 

2 

85 

3 

.30 

4. 

,48 

2. 

41 

0. 

,48 

7 

.37 

5. 

00 

6. 

89 

2 

54 

0.72 

0.73 

3 

99 

4 

.12 

1. 

50 

5 . 

82 

1 . 

96 

9 

.28 

9. 

00 

7. 

32 

8.00 

0 

65 

0.33 

0.89 

1 

87 

1 

.64 

6. 

,06 

4. 

12 

1. 

13 

11 

.31 

11. 

00 

1 10. 

18 

10.00 

0 

0 

14 

0.33 

’-0.56 

1 

50 

1 

.64 

5. 

76 

4. 

72 

0. 

69 

11 

.17 

11. 

00 

10. 

48 

10.00 

0. 

,08 

0.32 

20.52 

0, 

.92  i 

0 

.82  ! 

: 9. 

00 

3. 

71 

0. 

84 

13 

.55 

13. 

00 

12. 

71 

12.00 

0. 

28 

0.64 

0.73 

1, 

.65 

1 

.64| 

i 6. 

,24 

4. 

14 

7. 

37 

17 

.75 

15. 

00 

10. 

38 

10.00 

0. 

46 

0.40 

0.89 

1, 

.75 

1 

.64! 

1 6. 

,26 

4. 

30 

1. 

27 

11 

.83 

11. 

00 

10. 

,56 

10.00 

0. 

53 

0.45 

0.80 

1, 

.78 

1 

.64 

1 

,10 

3. 

58 

0. 

70 

11 

.38 

11. 

00 

10. 

68 

10.00 

2. 

35 

0.59  ; 

0.69 

3, 

.63 

3 

.30  1 

8. 

,00 

2. 

57 

1. 

,08 

11 

.65 

11. 

00 

10. 

57 

10.00 

0. 

22 

0.23 

0.51 

0, 

,96  ! 

0 

.82 

2, 

,94 

6. 

90 

0. 

94 

10 

.78 

10. 

00 

9. 

,84 

9.00. 

0. 

99 

0.11 

0.74 

1 , 

.84  : 

1 

.64 ; 

2. 

,80 

7. 

26 

0. 

86 

10 

.92 

11 . 

00 

10. 

06 

10.00 

0. 

81 

1 . 

28 

0.42 

0.34 

2, 

,85 

3 

.29 

6. 

,20 

4. 

49 

1. 

,25 

11 

.94 

11. 

00 

i lO- 

69 

10.00 

0. 

24 

0. 

24 

0.19 

0.27 

0. 

.94 

0 

.82 

5. 

,50 

5 . 

26 

1. 

,09 

11 

.85 

11. 

00 

10. 

76 

10.00 

0. 

78 

0.67 

0.39 

1, 

.84 

1 

.65 

6. 

,78 

3. 

20 

1. 

62 

11 

.60 

11. 

00 

9. 

98 

10.00 

0. 

67 

0. 

83 

0.37 

0.50 

2, 

.37 

2 

.47 

6. 

50 

4. 

05 

1. 

40 

11 

.95 

11. 

00 

10. 

55 

10.00 

3. 

81 

0 

04 

0.06 

0.96 

4. 

,87 

4 

.94 

7. 

,42 

0. 

95 

0. 

,47 

8 

.84 

9. 

00 

8. 

,37 

8.00 

0. 

,29 

3 , 

,44 

0.16 

0.26 

4, 

.15 

4 

.12 

9, 

,78 

1. 

37 

0. 

,45 

11 

.60 

11. 

00 

11. 

,15 

10.00 

0. 

31  ’ 

1 . 

10 

0.11 

0.35 

1, 

.87 

1 

.65 

6. 

,74 

3. 

60 

1. 

,04 

11 

.38 

11. 

00 

10. 

34 

10.00 

1. 

,14 

0. 

03 

0.14 

0.32 

1, 

.63 

1 

.65 

9. 

,40 

2. 

72 

0, 

,92 

13 

.04 

13. 

00 

! 12. 

12 

12.00 

2, 

,68 

0.15 

0.42 

3 

.25 

3 

.29 

7. 

,04 

1 . 

95 

0. 

,74 

9 

.73 

9. 

00 

8. 

99 

8.00 

Tr. 

2. 

.36 

0.42 

0.44 

3 

.22 

3 

.29 

6, 

.76 

2. 

,71 

1, 

,29 

10 

.76 

11. 

00 

9. 

,47 

10.00 

1, 

.15! 

1. 

,29 

0.16 

0.71 

3, 

.31 

3 

.30 

7, 

.84 

2. 

15 

2. 

94 

12 

.93 

10. 

00 

! 9. 

99 

10.00 

3. 

,45 

0.21 

0.52 

4, 

.18 

4 

.12 

9. 

.56 

1. 

39 

0. 

87 

11 

.82 

10. 

00 

' 10. 

95 

10.00 

1, 

,00  1 

0. 

,16 

0.39 

0.76 

2 

.31 

2 

.47 

7, 

.12 

2. 

70 

3. 

,77 

13 

.59 

10. 

00 

- 9. 

82 

10.00 

Tr.  j 

0, 

.76 

0.44 

»0.35 

1 

.55 

1 

.65 

7. 

,66 

3. 

32 

1. 

,90 

12 

.88 

10. 

00 

1 10. 

98 

10.00 

Tr. 

2. 

,01 

0.35 

0.79 

3 

.15 

3 

.29 

7. 

,80 

2. 

19 

1. 

36 

11 

.35 

10. 

00 

9. 

99 

10.00 

0, 

.74 

0. 

.75 

0.35 

: 1.13 

2 

.97 

3 

.29 

5. 

,04 

4. 

24 

1. 

,32 

10 

.60 

10. 

00 

9. 

28 

10.00 

0 

.57 

i 

.05 

0.16 

10.72 

1 

.50 

1 

.65 

5, 

,62 

4. 

26 

1. 

30 

11 

.18 

10. 

00 

9. 

88 

10.00 

1 

.49 

‘ 0. 

.09 

0.20 

1 0.97 

2 

.75 

2 

.47 

5, 

.30 

4. 

64 

1. 

60 

11 

.54 

10. 

00 

9. 

94 

10.00 

^ Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets 
quantity  of  inferior  quality. 


I 

New  Jersey 

Agricultural  Experiment  Stations 

BULLETIN  332 


SOME  STUDIES  ON  THE  EGGS  OF 
IMPORTANT  APPLE  PLANT  LICE 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


‘■"♦I*-;  • ' ’•r 

YfiA  fiC  I J V 
t:y,U.ll1('YlUI3Yllll' 
A^i:  . 

. 


i '•>*' 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Staff 2 

Introduction ’ 5 

Methods 7 

AForpholog-y  and  Behaviour  of  the  Eg^.  . . \) 

Susceptibility  of  Eggs  to  iMoistnre  and  Temperature 15 

Moisture  15 

Temperature  21 

Contact  Insecticides  and  Other  Chemicals 22 

Lime-Sulfur  21) 

Orchard  Experiments 52 

Miscible  Oils  51) 

Soaps 45 

Nicotine  48 

Crude  Carbolic  Acid,  Phenol  and  Cresols  51 

Various  Chemicals - 58 

Summary 59 

Control  ^Measures • bO 

Acknowledgment  bl 

References  b2 


Y(;/iri(l4J  :^v: 

/.  i:  Atf;  u 


6 


p 


L 

*• 


I 


-r 


■ 


i 


it 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS 
BULLETIN  332 


SOME  STUDIES  ON  THE  EGGS  OF  IMPORTANT 
APPLE  PLANT  LICE 
By 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.  D. 

Introduction 

This  paper  treats  of  some  recent  investigations  on  the  structure, 
behavior  and  susceptibility  of  the  eggs  of  three  important  aphides 
found  on  apple  trees,  Apltis  avence  Pabricius,  ApJds  pomi  DeGeer, 
and  Aphis  sorhi  Kaltenbach.  It  takes  up  a th.orough  discussion  of 
the  results  obtained  during  the  season  of  1916-17  which  were  pub- 
lished in  brief  form  in  the  Journal  of  Econoniic  E ntoniologij  for 
December,  1917.  It  also  includes  a report  on  the  extensive  experi- 
ments and  observations  conducted  during  the  past  season  (1917-18) 
on  the  eggs  of  A.  avcnoe. 

A considerable  amount  of  work  has  been  conducted  by  various 
investigators  on  the  effect  of  the  more  common  contact  insecticides 
on  aphid  eggs,  but  few  if  any  good  reasons  have  been  advanced 
which  explain  the  varying  results.  To  get  at  the  causes  for  these 
results  involves  a careful  study  of  the  physical  and  chemical  struc- 
ture of  the  egg,  particularly  the  egg  shell  and  the  response  of  the 
egg  to  various  stimuli  such  as  temperature,  moisture  and  chemicals. 
Studies  pertaining  to  all  these  points  have  not  been  made,  but  some 
have  been  conducted,  viz.,  the  gross  morphology  of  the  egg  coverings 
and  their  behavior  previous  to  the  emergence  of  the  nymph,  the 
susceptibility  of  the  egg  to  variations  in  temperature  and  to  differ- 
ent percentages  of  moisture,  and  the  physical  changes  produced  on 
the  coverings  of  the  egg  by  a number  of  common  insecticides  and 
other  chemicals,  and  also  the  influence  of  these  substances  on  the 
normal  percentage  of  hatch. 

The  eggs  of  the  three  species  of  apple  plant  lice  were  collected 
from  different  orchards  throughout  the  state  of  New  Jersey  during 
the  past  two  seasons.  In  1916-1917  the  eggs  of  the  so-called  apple- 
bud-aphis,  oat-aphis,  or  European  grain-aphis,  A.  avence,  were 
abundant  in  the  orchards  on  the  College  Farm  and  at  John  II.  Bar- 
clay’s orchard,  near  Cranbury,  N.  J.  During  the  same  season  the 
eggs  of  the  rosy  aphis,  A.  sorhi,  also  occurred  in  these  orchards,  but 
in  no  collection  did  they  exceed  15  per  cent  of  the  total  number.  The 


Bulletin  332 


(I 

eggs  of  the  green  apple  aphis,  A.  pomi,  were  very  abundant  on  water 
sprouts  in  an  old  unkept  orchard  near  Scott ’s  corner,  a few  miles 
from  Plainsboro,  N.  J.,  1916-17.  On  i\lay  1,  some  eight  hundred 
stem  mothers  were  collected  from  the  water  sprouts  in  this  orchard 
and  A.  ponii  made  up  71  per  cent  of  the  total  number,  A.  sorhi  26 
per  cent,  and  A.  aveiiCE  3 per  cent.  This  count,  along  with  others, 
shows  that  A.  sorhi  probably  made  up  25  to  30  per  cent  of  the  total 
number  of  eggs. 

During  the  past  dormant  season,  1917-18,  the  fall  migrants  and 
oviparous  females  were  observed  in  a number  of  orchards  through- 
out the  state  and  in  the  majority  of  places  A.  avence  was  the  only 
species  present;  A.  pomi  and  A.  soi'hi  were  comparatively  rare  in 
most  orchards.  The  investigations  during  the  past  season  deal  only 
with  A.  avence.  Three  orchards  were  choseii  for  supplying  mate- 
rial: John  11.  Barclay’s  orchard,  near  Cranbury,  N.  J. ; George 
Smith’s  orchard  near  South  River,  N.  J.;  and  J.  L.  Lippincott  Com- 
pany’s orchard,  near  Riverton,  N.  J. 

All  observations  made  in  respect  to  the  location  of  the  eggs  of 
the  different  species  and  the  time  of  hatching  conform  closely  with 
those  made  by  Baker  and  Turner  (2,  3)  and  other  investigators. 
The  eggs  of  A.  avence  and  A.  sorhi,  for  the  most  part  are  deposited 
under  buds  or  in  small  crevices  in  the  bark  on  second-year  growth, 
and  to  some  extent  on  larger  branches,  2 inches  in  diameter,  and  oc- 
casionally on  one-year  growth.  They  are  usually  distributed  even- 
ly throughout  the  orchard.  It  has  also  been  noted  that  varieties 
of  apple  trees  which  retain  their  leaves  the  longest  in  the  fall  of  the 
year  are  apt  to  have  the  heaviest  infestation.  This  is  probably  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  oviparous  female  feeds  on  the  under-side  of  the 
foliage  and  when  the  leaves  fall  from  the  tree  she  may  disappear 
with  the  leaves,  or  if  she  is  located  on  the  branches  of  the  tree  when 
the  leaves  fall  she  is  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  obtain  food 
wliich  is  j)roliably  essential  to  tlie  development  of  the  greatest  num- 
ber of  eggs.  The  eggs  of  A.  ponii  are  deposited  on  one-year  growth, 
particularly  at  the  distal  ends  of  water  sprouts,  and  they  are  often 
scattered  over  the  smooth  surface  of  the  twig.  Usually  the  infesta- 
tion is  local,  the  eggs  being  confined  to  a few  twigs  on  a trx^e  and  also 
not  evenly  distributed  throughout  the  orchard.  Frequently  the 
eggs  of  A.  pomi  are  very  abundant  in  young  orchards;  this  was  true 
of  John  II.  Barclay’s  orchard  in  1915. 

During  1917  the  eggs  of  A.  avence  started  to  hatch  about  March 
31,  and,  so  far  as  observed,  had  completely  hatched  by  April  6 or  7, 
while  the  eggs  of  A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi  started  to  hatch  about  April 
12  to  Id,  and  completed  liatching  in  a week  or  ten  days.  A.  sorhi 
apparently  preceded  A.  pomi  by  two  or  three  days,  at  least  the  stage 
of  development  of  the  nymphs  after  all  eggs  had  hatched  indicated 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


7 


as  much.  In  1918  the  eggs  of  A.  avence  started  to  hatch  ou  March 
21,  and  completed  hatching  on  April  5.  This  early  hatch  was  un- 
doubtedly due  to  the  unusually  warm  weather  during  IMarcli,  1918. 

The  percentage  of  eggs  which  hatch  varies  among  the  different 
species  (compare  the  percentage  of  hatch  in  the  different  checks). 
Out  of  1200  eggs  of  A.  avenw,  50  per  cent  hatched  in  1917,  while  in 
1918  only  30  per  cent  hatched  out  of  1800  eggs.  The  percentage  of 
hatch  in  the  different  checks  may  vary  considerably  (25  per  cent), 
when  only  a few  eggs  (50  to  100)  are  observed.  The  decided  dif- 
ference in  the  percentage  of  hatch  for  1917  and  for  1918  of  this 
species  is  probably  due  to  climatic  conditions.  The  eggs  of  A.  pomi 
and  A.  sorhi  during  1916-17  were  mixed  together  on  the  twigs 
used  in  the  experiments  (approximately  70  and  30  per  cent, 
respectively),  and  this  makes  it  impossible  to  determine  the 
percentage  of  hatch  for  each,  but  out  of  800  eggs  in  this  mixture, 
the  hatch  was  close  to  25  per  cent.  The  percentage  of  hatch  for  A. 
pomi  is  probably  somewhat  lower  than  that  of  A.  sorhi,  for  the  eg'gs 
of  A.  pooii  are  scattered  promiscuously  over  the  surface  of  the  twigs 
and  thus  exposed  to  accident  and  to  unfavorable  weather  conditions. 
The  above  percentages  of  hatch  are  considerably  higher  than  those 
recorded  by  other  investigators.  Gillette,  in  Colorado,  observed 
that  only  1 per  cent  of  the  eggs  of  A.  pomi  hatched.  This  seems  ex- 
ceptionally low;  however,  environmental  factors,  such  as  a low  per- 
centage of  humidity,  may  bring  about  this  decided  reeduction. 

Methods 

All  records  in  the  table  which  pertain  to  the  condition  of  the 
eggs,  were  made  by  carefully  observing  each  egg  under  a binocular 
microscope  and  then  noting  whether  it  was  normal,  split,  hatched 
or  shriveled.  In  this  way  one  can  readily  distinguish  a normal  egg 
by  its  plump  and  well  rounded  appearance  ami  homogenous  surface 
(plate  1,  fig.  1),  an  egg  with  its  outer  semi-transparent  covering- 
split  shows  a distinct  ghxssy  black  streak  p usually  along  the  meso- 
dorsal  line  (plate  1,  fig.  2 to  5),  a hatched  egg  possesses  a distinct 
opening  in  its  surface  (fig.  8 and  9),  and  a shriveled  egg  is  dry 
and  collapsed  (plate  J,  fig.  11  and  12). 

During  1916-17  approximately  10,000  eggs  were  carefully  ob- 
served, while  in  1917-18  over  40,000  eggs  were  used  in  the  various 
experiments,  and  a careful  record  was  made  for  each  egg.  When- 
ever material  was  needed  for  experimental  purposes,  collections 
were  made  from  the  aliove-mentioned  orchards  and  in  all 
cases  this  material,  when  used  for  out-of-door  experiments,  was 
kept  out-of-doors  and  exi)oscd  to  all  conditions  of  the  weather,  ex- 
cept for  the  few  minutes  required  to  examine  the  eggs  under  a 


8 


Bulletin  332 


binocular  microscope.  Before  starting  or  spraying  any  set  of  twigs, 
all  eggs  on  each  twig,  8-12  inches  long,  were  carefully  observed  and 
their  condition  noted.  If  any  egg  was  shriveled  or  hatched  or  ap- 
peared to  be  abnormal  in  any  respect,  it  was  removed ; thus  in  the 
various  experiments  only  normal-appearing  eggs  were  used.  Every 
twig  bearing  five  or  more  normal  eggs  fin  exceptional  cases  200  eggs 
of  A.  pomi  were  present  on  one  small  twig)  was  given  a string  tag, 
and  on  this  tag  was  written  the  number  of  the  experiment,  the 
source  of  the  material,  the  treatment  given,  the  number  of  normal 
eggs  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  In  many  cases  the  num- 
ber of  discarded  abnormal  eggs,  and  hatched  eggs,  if  such  were 
present. 

The  various  common  contact  insecticides,  lime-sulfur,  miscible 
oils,  laundry  and  fish-oil  soaps,  nicotine  sulfate  and  nicotine  resinate, 
and  other  chemicals  such  as  crude  carbolic  acid,  phenol  c.  p.,  meta 
cresol  c.  p.,  ortho  cresol  c.  p.,  para  cresol  c.  p.,  sodium  h^wlroxide, 
sodium  chloride,  sodium  sidfo-carbonate,  pyridine  solution, 
etc.,  wei-e  applied  to  the  twigs  by  means  of  a small  atomizer 
which  was  connected  with  a foot  pump.  The  atomizer  gave  a coarse 
spray  and  the  force  of  the  spray  was  weak,  for  the  greatest  pressure 
could  not  tlirow  tlie  material  over  three  feet.  The  twigs  at  the  time 
of  spraying  were  held  a few  inches  from  the  tip  of  the  atomizer,  and, 
so  far  as  possible,  all  sides  of  the  twig  and  all  the  eggs  were  hit  with 
the  spray.  Pro])a])ly  not  one  egg  out  of  a thousand  was  missed. 

Exi)eriments  with  the  various  contact  insecticides  and  chemicals 
during  11)13-17  were  comhictcd  iii  tlie  greenhouse  on  the  eggs  of 
^l.  avenxv,  and  out-of-doors  witli  the  eggs  of  all  three  species. 
In  1917-18  a duplicate  set  of  experiments  was  started  in  the  green- 
house and  out-of-doors  with  the  eggs  of  A.  avonv,  })ut  a shortage  of 
coal  during  the  month  of  February  made  it  necessary  to  close  the 
greenhouse.  The  twigs  were  brought  into  the  laboratory  from  the 
greenhouse  and  ])laccd  iu  a large  tin  compartment,  but  the  results 
obtained  from  these'  experiments  wci*e  not  as  satisfactory  as  they 
would  have  been  under  greenhouse  conditions,  conseepiently  they 
have  been  largely  omitted  from  this  })a])er.  81ince  it  was  necessary 
to  close  down  the  greenhouse,  a more  strenuous  effort  was  made  to 
run  a larger  number  of  expei-iments  under  out-of-door  conditions. 
The  twigs  used  in  the  experiments  in  1913-17  in  the  greenhouse 
were  [)laced  iu  tumblers  and  these  were  S('t  on  tanglefoot  paper  in 
order  that  the  nymphs  might  not  escape.  The  temperature  of  the 
greenhou.se  averaged  35°  F.,  and  the  humidity  was  about  75  per 
cent  most  of  the  time.  In  all  the  out-of-door  experiments  conduct- 
ed at  the  laboratory  the  twigs  bearing  the  eggs  were  suspended  on 
wires  which  extended  across  the  tops  of  large  empty  wooden  boxes. 
These  boxes  were  located  in  an  open  place  near  the  laboratory  and 
completely  exi)osed  to  all  conditions  of  the  weather,  thus  duplicat- 
ing. as  nearly  as  })o.ssible,  tlie  (»rchard  environment.  The  results 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


i) 


from  this  laboratory  method  were  very  satisfactory  during  both 
seasons  for  they  exactly  duplicated  the  results  obtained  in  the  or- 
chard where  lime-sulphur,  lime-sulphur^combiiied  with  nicotine,  and 
“Scalecide”  were  used.  The  loss  of  eggs  in  handling  the  twigs 
usually  did  not  exceed  10  per  cent,  and  in  most  cases  it  was  less  than 
10  per  cent.  When  a few  eggs  were  lost,  it  is  assumed  that  the  loss 
was  proi)ortionally  shared  by  eggs  which  wouM  hatch  under  nonnal 
conditions  and  those  that  would  not  hatch. 

, ^lORPilOLOGY  AND  BeIIAVIOR  OF  THE  EgG 

Tlie  eggs  of  A.  avcnce,  A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi  are  glossy  black, 
oval  in  form  and  slightly  flattened  on  their  ventral  aspects,  adjacent 
to  the  twig  (plate  1,  fig.  1 and  0).  The  eggs  vary  somewhat  in  size, 
but  generally  speaking  they  are  about  1/45  inch  in  length  and  1/90 
inch  in  width.  According  to  Baker  and  Turner  (2)  the  eggs  of  A. 
pomi  average  0.572  mm.  by  0.281  mm.,  and  of  ^1.  sorbi  0.550  nmi.  by 
0.272  mm.  The  newly  laid  eggs  are  soft  and  retain  this  consist- 
ency, more  or  less,  even  after  the  outer  shell  hardens.  A new  egg 
has  a light  yellow  color  which  soon  changes  to  a green  tinge  and 
then  gradually  darkens  to  a deep  black.  This  change  usually  takes 
place  in  a few  days,  one  to  four  according  to  Baker  and  Turner. 
During  the  past  season  it  was  noted  that  a small  percentage  of  the 
eggs  of  A.  aveme  recpiired  ten  or  more  days  to  change  to  a glossy 
black  and  some  never  changed,  but  retained  their  greenish  tinge 
throughout  the  winter.  Apparently  these  eggs  are  abnormal,  for 
they  did  not  hatch,  so  far  as  observed.  Other  abnormal  eggs  had  a 
light  brown  tinge  and  they  did  not  liatch. 

The  glossy  appearance,  particularly  true  of  a newly  deposited 
egg,  is  due  to  the  moist  glutinous  layer  which  entirely  surrounds  it. 
This  layer  t hardens  and  glues  the  egg  to  the  twig  and  also  acts  as 
a protective  layer  to  conserve  the  moisture  content  of  the  developing 
embryo.  After  the  outer  layer  hardens  one  can  remove  it  by  care- 
ful dissection,  and  then  its  thin,  colorless,  semi-transparent  and 
somewhat  tough  consistency  can  be  seen.  This  layer  probably 
originates  as  a secretion  from  accessory  glands  in  the  oviparous 
female,  at  least  such  glands  are  present  in  the  female. 

The  black  or  pigmented  portion  p of  the  egg  is  entirely  confined 
to  the  slightly  tough  and  elastic  membrane  directly  beneath  the  outer 
semi-transparent  layer.  The  glossy  black  and  moist  appearance 
of  this  layer  is  readily  observed  in  eggs  wliere  the  outer  semi-trans- 
parent layer  t has  split  (plate  1,  fig.  2-10).  The  pigmented  layer 
undoubtedly  is  a true  chorion  for  it  is  found  about  the  egg  as  a dis- 
tinct pigmented  layer  wdien  the  egg  has  nearly  completed  its  forma- 
tion wdthin  the  oviparous  female.  The  chorion  is  secreted  by  the 
ovarian  cells  about  the  ovum.  The  i)igmented  layer  may  serve  as  a 
protective  covering,  but,  so  far  as  w’ater  conservation  is  concerned 


10 


Bulletin  332 


and  also  as  a protection  against  certain  chemicals,  it  is  of  little  use, 
as  shown  in  various  experiments. 

A third  layer,  which*  is  a thin  transparent  membrane,  sur- 
rounds the  nymph  as  it  starts  to  emerge.  This  layer  is  shed  by  the 
nymph  as  it  emerges,  consequently  it  must  he  an  exuvium.  The 
east  skin  v may  be  seen  as  a shriveled  white  mass  at  the  cephalic  end 
of  the  opening  of  a hatched  egg. 

The  two  layers  of  the  egg  and  the  skin  about  the  nymph  as  it 
emerges  undergo  certain  changes  at  the  time  of  hatching,  and  these 
are  significant,  for  they  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the  re- 
sponse of  the  egg  to  differences  in  temperature  and  moisture  and 
to  common  insecticides  and  other  chemicals.  These  changes  have 
been  observed  for  two  seasons  on  the  eggs  of  all  three  species,  but 
they  have  been  observed  with  special  care  on  the  eggs  of  A.  avence. 

In  1917  it  was  noted  that  the  semi-transparent  outer  layer 
t of  many  eggs  of  all  three  species  splits  (plate  1,  fig.  4 and  5) 
along  the  meso-dorsal  line  a short  time  previous  to  the  emergence 
of  the  young  nymph.  The  split  starts  near  the  cephalic  end  (plate  1, 
fig.  4)  and  usually  extends  to  the  posterior  end,  and  in  nine  cases 
out  of  ten  occurs  along  the  meso-dorsal  line.  In  exceptional  cases 
the  outer  layer  t may  show  several  breaks  (plate  1,  fig.  2 and  3), 
or  the  single  split  may  not  follow  the  meso-dorsal  line  (plate  1, 
fig.  9).  The  time  interval  between  the  splitting  of  the  outer  layer 
and  the  rupture  of  the  pigmented  layer  was  not  definitely  de- 
termined in  1917,  for  the  significance  of  the  splitting  was  not 
realized  until  it  was  too  late  to  make  the  necessary  observations. 
It  was  observed,  however,  that  the  eggs  of  A.  avence  under  green- 
house conditions  showed  a split  outer  covering  about  48  hours  before 
any  hatching  occurred,  while  the  eggs  of  A.  pomi  under  out-of-door 
conditions  showed  a split  outer  shell  some  eight  days  before  any 
hatching  occurred.  During  1918  the  first  split  eggs  of  A.  avence 
were  seen  on  February  15.  Just  previous  to  this  date  we  experi- 
enced a few  warm  days  after  a continuously  cold  and  severe  winter. 
From  February  15  on,  the  percentage  of  eggs  showing  a split  outer 
covering  increased.  The  eggs  were  observed  in  batches  of  200  to 
500  collected  from  various  orchards.  The  eggs  collected  from  J.  L. 
Lippincott  Company’s  orchard  at  Riverton,  N.  J.,  showed  the 
following  increase  in  the  percentage  of  eggs  with  split  outer  shells 
(kept  out-of-doors)  and  these  observations  are  typical  of  eggs 
collected  from  other  orchards  in  1918:  February  19,  2 per  cent 
split;  February  26,  10  per  cent  split;  March  1,  20  per  cent  split; 
March  4,  25  per  cent  split;  March  11,  33  per  cent  split;  March  19, 
43  per  cent  split;  and  March  25,  47  per  cent  split  (also  see  dia- 
gram 1 ) . So  far  as  observed,  about  95  per  cent  of  all  the  live  eggs 
had  broken  their  outer  semi-transparent  shell  before  the  first 
uymphs  emerged. 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


11 


So  far  as  is  known,  no  egg  hatched  under  out-of-door  con- 
ditions without  splitting  its  outer  semi-transparent  layer  at  least 
48  hours  before  the  nymph  emerged.  The  above  47  per  cent  of  split 
eggs  observed  on  March  25  probably  increased  to  53-55  per  cent  be- 
fore all  the  eggs  hatched,  at  least  other  checks  showed  a total  of  53  to 
55  per  cent  of  eggs  with  split  outer  coverings.  This  53-55  per  cent 
of  eggs  with  split  outer  coverings  shows  that  this  percentage  of  eggs 
was  normal,  alive  and  preparing  to  hatch,  but  during  the  past 
season  an  average  of  29  per  cent  of  all  the  eggs  actually  hatched. 
In  other  words,  24  to  26  per  cent  of  the  eggs  after  splitting  their 
outer  covering  were  unable  to  complete  the  process  of  hatching. 

Eggs  of  A.  avence  (200  collected  from  J.  L.  Lippincott  Co.) 
were  brought  into  the  laboratory  on  Eebruar}^  26,  1918,  and  kept  in 
a moist  chamber  (70°  P.).  The  percentage  of  split  eggs  increased 
with  great  rapidity  because  of  the  increase  in  temperature  over 
out-of-door  conditions:  on  February  26,  10  per  cent  split;  Feb- 
ruary 27,  23  per  cent  split;  March  1,  25  per  cent  split,  and  1 per 
cent  hatched;  March  6,  33  per  cent  split  and  10  per  cent  hatched; 
March  11,  20  per  cent  split  and  29  per  cent  hatched;  March  13, 

9.5  per  cent  split  and  41  per  cent  hatched ; and  March  15,  7 per  cent 
split  and  43.5  per  cent  hatched.  There  was  no  increase  in  hatched 
or  split  eggs  after  March  15.  The  minimum  period  of  time  between 
the  splitting  of  the  outer  covering  and  the  emergence  of  the  nymph 
under  indoor  conditions  was  not  observed ; however,  so  far  as  known 
all  eggs  split  their  outer  shell  at  least  a few  hours  before  emergence. 

In  these  indoor  experiments  only  28  per  cent  of  the  eggs  showed 
a split  outer  covering  when  the  first  nymphs  emerged.  This  means 
that  only  55  per  cent  of  the  live  eggs  which  were  preparing  to  hatch 
had  split  their  outer  shell  before  the  first  nymphs  appeared.  This 
is  quite  different  from  the  95  per  cent  among  the  live  eggs  kept 
out-of-doors.  Temperature,  therefore,  has  a marked  influence  on 
the  rapidity  with  which  the  nymph  will  emerge  after  the  outer  shell 
is  broken.  In  the  above  indoor  experiment  it  was  also  observed 
that  50.5  per  cent  of  all  the  eggs  split  their  outer  shells  and  that 

43.5  per  cent  of  all  the  eggs  hatched.  In  other  words  only  7 per 
cent  of  the  eggs  with  split  outer  coverings  failed  to  hatch,  while 
24  to  26  per  cent  of  the  eggs  with  split  outer  shells  failed  to  hatch 
when  kept  out-of-doors.  The  explanation  for  this  decided  difference 
is  probably  due  to  differences  in  moisture  (evaporating  factors)  as 
explained  further  on. 

The  splitting  of  the  outer  layer  is  probably  due  to  the  pressure 
exerted  along  the  meso-dorsal  line  by  the  developing  embryo  or 
nymph.  It  is  also  possible  that  certain  secretions  may  help  to 
dissolve  or  weaken  the  brittle  outer  layer.  A careful  histological 
study  may  throw  some  light  on  this  question.  All  eggs  with  a split. 


12 


Bulletin  332 


F:XPI.A NATION  OF  FIGI  UES 


All  figures  are  known  to  be  typical  of  J.  azriuc  and  .4.  pomi  (and 

pi’obably  A.  sorbi)  unless  otherwise  designated. 

Fig.  1 — Dorsal  view  of  a normal  dormant  egg. 

Fig.  2 & 3 — Dorsal  views  of  eggs  showing  unusual  types  of  splitting 
in  the  outer  semi-transparent  covering. 

Fig.  4 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg  showing  an  early  stage  in  the  usual  type 
of  splitting  of  the  outer  semi-transparent  layer. 

Fig.  5 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg  showing  an  advanced  stage  in  the  usual 
type  of  splitting  of  the  outer  semi-transparent  layer. 

Fig.  6 — Lateral  view  of  egg  seen  in  figure  5 showing  the  elevated  inner 
pigmented  layer,  or  chorion. 

Fig.  7 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg  of  . /.  avcmc  showing  an  early  stage  in  the 
emergence  of  the  nymph.  Note  the  egg  burster  on  the  head  of 
the  nymph  along  the  meson  and  the  cut  pigmented  layer. 

Fig.  8 -Dorsal  view  of  an  empty  egg  shell  showing  usual  method  of 
splitting. 

Fig.  9 — Dorsal  view  of  an  empty  egg  shell  showing  unusual  method 
of  splitting. 

Fig.  10 — Doi’sal  view  of  a nymph  of  A.  az’ciuc  emerging  from  an  egg; 
nymph  about  to  free  itself  completely  from  the  egg. 

Fig.  1 1 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg  partly  shriveled. 

Fig.  12 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg  completely  collapsed. 

Fig.  13 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg,  similar  to  figure  5,  which  has  been 
sprayed  with  a 2 per  cent  solution  of  crude  carbolic  acid.  Observe 
the  wrinkled  outer  semi-transparent  layer. 

Fig.  14 — Dorsal  view  of  an  egg,  similar  to  figure  5,  showing  early  stage 
in  usual  method  of  shrivel  when  egg  has  been  treated  with  various 
sprays,  particularly  crude  carbolic  acid  and  miscible  oils. 


AIIIIKFVIATIONS 


ant.  Antenna 

b.  Egg  burster 

d.  Depression 

e.  Elevation 

n.  Nymph 

p.  Inner  pigmented  layer  (chorion) 

s.  Split  or  opening  in  empty  hatched  eggs 

I.  Outer  semi-transparent  layer 

V.  Exuvium  (?) 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Appi.e  Plant  Lice 


Plate  1.  Eggs  of  ^1.  arciuc  and  .1.  poiiii. 


14 


Bulletin  332 


outer,  semi-transparent  shell  are  readily  distinguished  from  dor- 
mant eggs  by  the  decided  glossy  black  appearance  of  the  exposed 
and  unbroken  pigmented  layer  p,  while  the  portion  of  the  egg 
covered  with  the  semi-transparent  shell  has  a duller  black  color. 
After  the  outer  shell  splits  and  when  the  young  nymph  is  ready  to 
emerge  it  exerts  pressure  along  the  meso-dorsal  line  and  severs  the 
pigmented  layer  (plate  1,  fig.  7)  with  the  sharp  dark-colored  ridge 
or  egg  burster  b located  along  the  meso-dorsal  line  of  the  head  of 
the  nymph. 

The  egg  burster  b was  observed  on  the  dorsal  aspect  of  the 
head  of  A.  avence  and  A.  pomi.  It  coincides  with  the  usual  location 
of  the  stem  of  the  epicranial  suture.  During  emergence  this  ridge 
disappears  and  only  a faint  line  remains  along  the  meson.  No  egg 
burster  was  seen  in  the  nymphs  of  A.  sorbiy  but  this  was  probably 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  nymphs  were  not  seen  immediately  after 
they  cut  their  way  through  the  pigmented  layer.  The  origin  and 
disappearance  of  the  egg  burster  has  not  been  carefully  worked 
out,  but  it  is  possible  that  this  ridge  or  cutting  edge  belongs  to  the 
exuvium  or  skin  which  seems  to  be  shed  by  the  nymph  as  it  emerges. 
If  such  is  the  case  this  will  account  for  its  disappearance. 

Tile  pigmented  layer  which  is  severed  by  the  nymph  is  some- 
what elastic.  This  is  shown  in  the  fact  that  the  egg  is  a trifle 
larger  at  the  cephalic  end  after  the  outer  layer  splits.  Also,  the 
pigmented  layer  is  elevated  to  a slight  extent  between  the  edges  of 
the  broken  outer  layer,  as  seen  in  figures  4,  5 and  6.  This  elevation 
is  jirobably  due  to  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  nymph  within  the 
egg  as  it  tries  to  cut  its  way  out.  The  elasticity  is  also  shown  in 
liatched  eggs,  for  the  pigmented  layer  contracts  somewhat  after  it 
is  niptured  and  the  edges  of  this  rupture  often  coincide  with  the 
margin  of  the  broken  semi-transparent  outer  covering  (fig.  8 and 
9).  The  wriggling  and  twisting  of  the  nymph  as  it  emerges  may 
also  help  to  push  the  pigmented  layer  back  to  the  point  where  it 
coincides  with  the  margin  of  the  split  outer  shell. 

As  the  nymph  of  A.  avencn  starts  to  emerge  it  is  covered  with 
a thin  transparent  skin  which  it  sheds  before  it  is  out  of  the  shell. 
3diis  skin  is  exceedingly  thin  and  very  difficult  to  see.  The  writer 
was  unable  to  determine  the  exact  time  in  the  emergence  period 
when  the  nymphs  f)reak  tliis  skin.  If  the  egg  burster  belongs  to 
this  first  exuvium  it  is  shed  a short  time8:)efore  the  nymph  reaches 
the  stage  shown  in  figure  10.  This  same  membrane  in  A.  pomi^ 
apparently  is  not  shed  until  the  nymph  is  almost  out  of  the  shell. 
Observations  concerning  the  above  point  need  to  be  repeated  for 
all  three  species.  The  nymph  of  A.  avenm  is  usually  two-thirds  out 
of  the  egg  before  the  appendages  of  the  body  become  free  and  use- 
ful. The  antenna?  are  the  first  to  be  free  of  the  exuvium  and  the 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


15 


legs  come  next,  starting  with  the  prothoracic.  The  last  appendages 
to  free  themselves  of  the  egg  and  exuvhim  are  the  metathoracic 
legs  and  mouth-parts.  A distinct  skin  is  withdrawn  from  the  beak. 
This  in  part  probably  surrounded  the  maxilloB  and  mandibles.  The 
process  of  hatching  is  apparently  a difficult  one,  for  many  nymphs 
are  unable  to  free  their  various  appendages,  especially  the  meta- 
thoracic legs  which  often  remain  attached  to  the  white  mass  of 
skin  at  the  cephalic  end  of  the  open  egg.  Numerous  nymphs  are 
thus  killed  in  the  very  last  stage  of  hatching.  The  above  fate  of 
many  a nymph  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  exuvium  hardens 
on  long  exposure  to  air  and  this  makes  it  very  difficult  for  the 
nymph  to  remove  the  last  pair  of  legs. 

The  above  detailed  observations  on  the  morphological  struc- 
ture of  the  egg  and  the  behavior  of  the  respective  coverings  during 
the  hatching  period  (February  15  to  April  5 for  A.  avence)  shows 
conclusively  that  the  egg  is  not  a hard  resistant  body  and  that  it 
goes  through  a critical  change  previous  to  the  emergence  of  the 
nymph,  which  means  that  it  is  not  as  resistant  during  these  changes 
as  in  the  dormant  period.  It  is  in  the  midst  of  these  changes 
or  just  previous  to  any  visible  change  that  certain  control  measures 
may  produce  their  greatest  effect.  Some  eggs  start  to  split  30  to 
:15  days  before  the  first  nymphs  appear,  but  the  largest  percentage  of 
split  eggs,  47  per  cent  or  better,  occurs  at  the  time  the  first  nymphs 
emerge  (only  29  per  cent  of  A.  avencB  emerged  this  past  season). 
In  brief,  the  percentage  of  eggs  showing  a split  outer  shell  is  pro- 
gressive and  this  is  an  important  point  when  one  wishes  to  obtain 
the  best  results  with  certain  contact  insecticides. 

Susceptibility  of  Eggs  to  Moisture  and  Temperature 
Moisture 

A few  experiments  have  been  conducted  with  the  eggs  of 
A.  avence  and  A.  pomi  to  determine  the  effect  of  different  per- 
centages of  moisture  on  the  hatching  of  the  egg  and  the  relative 
permeability  of  the  two  outer  layers.  The  results  of  these  few 
experiments  are  very  suggestive  and  undoubtedly  have  an  im- 
portant bearing  on  the  percentage  of  hatch  which  will  occur  under 
varying  out-of-door  conditions.  They  also  throw  considerable  light 
on  the  problem  of  how  certain  contact  insecticides  may  prevent 
hatching. 

During  1917  experiments  were  conducted  with  different  per- 
centages of  moisture  in  the  incubators  and  moisture  control  ap- 
paratus used  by  Dr.  T.  J.  Ileadlee  in  his  investigations  on  grain- 
infesting  insects ; the  writer  wishes  to  express  his  appreciation  for 
the  privilege  of  using  this  efficient  apparatus.  The  four  incubators 


16 


Bulletin  332 


TABLE  1 

Table  Showing  Effect  of  Variations  in  ^Ioisture  on  Eggs  of  A. 

A VENAE  AND  A.  POMI  AT  A CONSTANT  TEMPERATURE  OF  80°  F. 


C 3 
(U  -•-> 
O M 

Q.  E 


t) 

c m 
(Ut 
oJ- 


CLO 


■O 

tt)  “ ® ; 
DC 

eo  > 

^ t.  Ej 
(Jr  ol 
Q(0o: 


101 

A. 

avemic 

1 )ry 

Mar.  25 

Mar.  27  1 

1 25  ■ 

1 

10 

14 

4 

3 days; 

Alar.  28  i 

25 

1 

0 

24 

102 

A. 

ai'cnac 

22 

Mar.  25 

Mar.  27 

25 

0 

12 

13 

12 

4 days! 

Mar.  28 

05 

0 

4 

21 

Mar.  29 

25 

3 

0 

22 

1 

102 

A. 

avcnae 

63 

Mar.  25 

Alar.  27 

25 

0 

lit 

6 ' 

20  ' 

10  days| 

Mar.  28 

25 

2 

12 

11 

Mar.  29 

25 

3 

7 

15 

Mar.  31 

25 

3 

2 

1 20 

Apr.  4 

25 

5 

0 

I 20 

104 

A. 

iwenae 

100 

Alar.  25 

Alar.  27 

25 

1 

24 

; 0 

36 

10  daysj 

Mar.  28 

25 

6 

17 

1 

Mar.  29 

25 

7 

14 

4 

i 

1 

Mar.  31 

25 

7 

9 

9 

Apr.  4 

25 

9 

0 

16 

1 

105 

A. 

pODli 

Dry 

Apr.  6 

Apr.  7 

102 

2 

54 

46 

2 

5 days 

Apr.  9 

102 

2 

5 

95 

Apr.  11 

102 

2 

0 

j 100 

lOG 

A. 

pomi 

22 

Apr.  6 

Apr.  7 

101 

0 

52 

1 49 

00 

5 days! 

Apr.  9 

101 

0 

6 

1 95 

.Apr.  11 

101 

0 

0 

1 101 

107 

A. 

point 

63 

A pr.  6 

Apr.  7 

100 

1 

73 

26 

20 

8 days 

.Apr.  9 

1 00 

10 

35 

55 

L 

Apr.  11 

100 

18 

5 

' 77 

1 

Apr.  14 

100 

20 

0 

80 

j 

108 

A. 

ponti 

100 

Apr.  6 

.Apr.  7 

100 

3 

• 

95 

! 

46 

8 days  j- 

Apr.  9 

100 

45 

28 

.A])!'.  11 

100 

46 

2 

52 

i 

Apr.  14 

100 

4 6 

0 

54 

109 

A. 

ponii 

Dry 

Alar.  14 

Alar.  17 

175 

0 

100 

75 

00 

7 days 

Mar.  19 

175 

0 

25 

150 

|AIar.  21 

175 

0 

0 

175 

110 

A. 

pomi 

22 

Mar.  14 

i Alar.  17 

250 

0 

210  i 

40 

00 

11  days 

Mar.  19 

250 

0 

160  1 

90 

iMar.  21 

250 

0 

200 

Mar.  23 

250 

0 

10 

240 

,Mar.  25 

250 

0 • 

250  : 

111 

A. 

ponti 

63 

Alar.  14 

Mar.  17 

250 

0 

235 

215 

00 

24  days 

Alar.  19 

250 

0 

215 

35 

Alar.  21 

250 

0 

195 

55 

Mar.  23 

250 

0 

180 

70 

Alar.  25 

250 

0 

150 

100 

Apr.  4 

250 

0 

50  i 

200 

Apr.  7 

250 

0 

0 

250 

112 

A. 

pomi 

100 

Mar.  14 

i.Mar.  17 

1 25 

0 

120  ; 

5 i 

00 

24  days 

Mar.  19 

125 

0 

no  i 

15  ' 

1 

Mar.  21 

125 

0 

100  1 

25 

Mar.  23 

125 

0 

85  I 

40 

Mai-.  25 

1 25 

0 

35 

90 

A))!-.  4 

125 

0 

35 

90 

Apr.  7 

125 

0 

0 

125 

Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


17 


registered  8()°E.,  and  each  was  fitted  with  one  moisture-control 
apparatus;  one  contained  dry  air  which  always  registered  less  than 
0.5  per  cent  moisture,  another  air  of  22  per  cent  moisture,  the  third 
about  63  per  cent  moisture,  and  the  fourtli  air  completely  saturated. 
Practically  no  variation  occurred  in  the  dry  air  and  in  the  satura- 
ted, while  in  the  case  of  22  and  63  per  cent  moistures  the  amount 
occasionally  fluctuated  1 to  5 per  cent.  The  eggs  were  carefully 
selected  and  removed  from  the  twigs  by  cutting  the  bark  adjacent 
to  them,  or  very  small  twigs  bearing  numerous  eggs  were  chosen,  and 
these  placed  in  80cc.  glass  bottles  fitted  with  rublier  stoppers  having 
two  short  glass  tubes  which  connected  the  bottle  with  the  moisture- 
control  equipment. 

Table  1 shows  the  results  of  a few  inculiator  experiments  con- 
ducted with  A.  aroia  and  A.  pomi.  The  various  columns  are  self 
explanatory ; the  second  from  the  right  gives  the  total  percentage  of 
hatch  of  all  the  eggs  after  all  hatched  or  shriveled,  and  the  column 
to  the  extreme  right  gives  the  number  of  days  re({uired  to  shrivel 
and  kill  all  the  eggs.  The  percentage  of  hatch  might  have  varied 
a little  in  the  different  experiments  if  a larger  number  of  eggs  had 
been  used ; however,  the  results  unquestionably  show  that  different 
percentages  of  moisture  have  a decided  influence  on  the  emergence 
of  the  nymph.  The  largest  percentage  of  hatch  occurred  in  satura- 
ted air,  and  practically  no  hatch  in  dry  air.  This  decided  influence 
of  moisture  probably  accounts  for  the  low  percentage  of  hatch 
recorded  for  A.  pomi  by  Gillette  (6),  in  Colorado,  where  the  rela- 
tive humiditv  of  the  climate  is  much  less  than  at  New  Brunswick, 
N.  J. 

The  rate  of  shrivel  of  the  eggs  in  the  different  percentages  of 
moisture  in  all  the  experiments  is  also  significant.  This  is  par- 
ticularly true  in  the  experiments  with  the  eggs  of  A.  pomi  (exp. 
109-112)  which  never  hatched.  Eggs  of  A.  pomi  will  not  hatch 
when  brought  into  greenhouse  or  laboratory  temperatures  unless 
it  is  near  the  normal  out-of-door  hatching  period,  not  over  20  to  30 
days  before  hatching. 

In  experiments  109-112  dry  air  completely  shriveled  the  eggs 
in  7 days  while  saturated  air  required  24  days.  In  other  words,  in 
these  experiments  and  also  in  all  others  pertaining  to  moisture,  the 
rate  of  shrivel  shows  that  the  water  evaporated  from  eggs  in  dry 
air,  or  22  per  cent  humidity,  in  one-half  to  one-third  the  time  re- 
quired for  eggs  under  63  per  cent  moisture,  or  complete  saturation. 
Comparing  the  rate  of  shrivel  of  the  eggs  in  experiments  109-112 
started  on  March  14  with  those  of  the  same  species  (exp.  105-108) 
started  on  April  6,  the  eggs  of  the  latter  shriveled  more  rapidly. 
This  increase  in  the  rate  of  shrivel  is  closely  correlated  with  the 
greater  percentage  of  eggs  showing  split  outer  coverings  near  the 
hatching  period. 


18  Bulletin  332 

The  above  experiments  show  that  the  outer,  semi-transparent 
brittle  layer  of  the  egg  is  permeable  to  water  and  cannot  conserve 
the  moisture  content  of  the  embryo  when  exposed  to  adverse  dry 
conditions,  but  it  does  conserve  a sufficient  quantity  of  moisture 
under  normal  out-of-door  conditions,  so  that  25  per  cent  or  more  of 
the  eggs  hatch.  These  experiments  also  indicate  that  the  eggs  are 
most  susceptible  to  drought  just  previous  to  the  hatching  period. 
This  is  apparently  due  to  the  fact  that  almost  all  the  normal  eggs 
preparing  to  hatch  show  a split  outer  covering  and  this  splitting  of 
the  outer  shell  exposes  the  permeable  pigmented  layer  to  adverse 
conditions,  thus  increasing  the  rate  of  evaporation. 

A simple  experiment  was  conducted  to  determine  the  relative 
permeability  of  the  pigmented  layer  and  the  outer  semi-transparent 
layer.  The  outer  layer  t was  carefully  removed  from  15 "normal 
eggs  of  A.  avenecB  on  April  5,  and  the  plump-skinned  eggs  were 
transferred  to  a Syracuse  watch  glass  with  a piece  of  blotting  paper 
on  the  bottom.  Fifteen  normal  plump  eggs  also  were  placed  in  the 
same  watch  glass  and  a piece  of  moist  blotting  paper  was  added^ 
but  this  did  not  come  in  contact  with  any  of  the  eggs.  A similar 
watch  glass  was  used  as  a cover. 

TABLE  2 

Influence  op  Moisture  on  Skinned  Eggs  and  Normal  Eggs 


Condition 
of  eggs 

90  minutes 

4 hours 

24  hours 

48  hours* 

8 days 

15  skinned  eggs 

12  slightly 
shriveled; 

3 normal 

15  shriveled; 

8 completely 
collapsed 

15  completely 
collapsed 

15  completely 
collapsed 

15  completely 
collapsed 

15  normal  eggs 

15  normal 

15  normal 

13  normal; 

1 2 shriveled 

11  normal; 

2 shriveled; 

2 hatched 

9 shriveled; 

6 hatched 

♦Observations  made  between  48  hours  and  8 days  omitted  from  table. 


The  results  from  these  experiments  are  conclusive;  the  pig- 
mented or  second  layer  about  the  egg  is  very  permeable  when 
compared  with  the  outer  semi-transparent  layer,  for  the  water  con- 
tent of  all  the  skinned  eggs  was  completely  evaporated  in  24  hours. 
The  normal  eggs  were  much  more  resistant,  for  in  24  hours  only 
two  eggs  showed  a slight  indication  of  sliriveling,  none  of  the  skin- 
ned eggs  hatched,  while  6 of  the  15  normal  eggs  hatched  in  4 days. 
In  brief,  this  experiment  shows  that  the  lirittle  outer  layer  acts  as  a 
preventive  agent  against  water  evaporation  under  normal  conditions, 
while  the  inner  pigmented  layer  does  not  perform  this  function  to 
any  great  extent. 

ruder  out-of-door  conditions  the  percentage  of  hatch  of  the 
eggs  of  A.  avence  has  been  observed  for  two  seasons.  In  1917 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


19 


approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  eggs  of  this  species  hatched,  while 
in  1918  about  30  per  cent  hatched,  a difference  of  20  per  cent. 
Among  selected  eggs  used  in  the  checks  for  experiments  conducted 
out-of-doors  from  February  19  to  April  1,  an  average  of  56  per  cent 
of  the  eggs  hatched  in  1917,  while  44  per  cent  hatched  in  1918,  a 
difference  of  12  per  cent.  The  above  difference  in  the  percentages 
of  hatch  for  the  two  seasons  is  believed  to  be  due  to  the  decided 
difference  in  the  weather.  In  1917  we  experienced  many  wet  and 
cold  days  throughout  the  last  two  weeks  in  February  and  almost 
all  of  March.  The  last  two  weeks  of  March  in  1917  were  par- 
ticularly wet  (March  15-31).  In  1918  the  later  part  of  February 
resembled  the  same  period  in  1917,  but  the  entire  month  of  March 
was  comparatively  dry,  especially  the  last  two  weeks,  and  this 
weather  was  very  conducive  to  high  evaporation.  Unfortunately, 
only  occasional  records  were  made  of  the  humidity  during  these 
two  years,  but  in  1918  a number  of  days  in  the  last  weeks  of  March 
showed  40  per  cent  of  moisture  at  mid-day.  Table  3 shows  the 
rainfall  for  the  two  seasons  covering  six  weeks,  February  15  to 
IMarch  31.  A comparison  shows  immediately  a decided  difference 
in  the  amount  of  rainfall,  especially  for  the  last  weeks  in  March, 
and  these  weeks  are  the  most  important  for  at  this  time  the  greatest 
number  of  eggs  have  their  outer  coverings  split,  thus  exposing  the 
permeable  pigmented  layer  to  evaporating  factors  such  as  low 
humidity,  high  temperature  and  wind  velocity.  During  March  15 
to  March  31,  1917,  1.59  inches  of  rain  fell,  8 days  out  of  19  gave 
over  0.01  inch  of  rain  and  9 days  out  of  15  were  cloudy  or  partly 
so,  while  in  1918,  0.22  inch  of  rain  fell,  and  only  3 days  out  of 
15  were  partly  cloudy.  During  March  15-31,  1917,  there  was  a 
mean  maximum  of  53 °F.,  and  a mean  minimum  of  32.1  °F.,  Avhile 
in  1918  the  mean  maximum  was  59.3  °F.  and  the  mean  minimum 
33.6°F.  thus  in  1918  there  was  an  increase  of  6.3°F.  in  the  mean 
maximum  and  1.5 °F.  in  the  mean  minimum.  This  difference 
in  temperature  along  with  the  decided  difference  in  rainfall  and 
cloudy  days  means  that  the  humidity  Avas  probably  greater  in  1917 
than  in  1918.  All  the  above  characteristics  of  the  weather  for 
March,  particularly  March  15-31,  show  that  the  evaporation  of 
moisture  from  the  split  eggs  would  be  much  greater  in  1918  than 
in  1917,  and  this  being  the  case  the  percentage  of  hatch  would  be 
lower  for  1918.  This  is  actually  true,  as  shown  above  among  eggs 
collected  from  various  orchards  and  also  among  selected  eggs  used 
as  checks  in  various  experiments  for  the  two  seasons, 


20 


Bulletin  332 


TABLE  3 

Precipitation  for  February  15  to  March  31,  1917  and  1918 


Precipitation  1 March  Precipitation  March  | Precipitation 


ruary  : 

1917  ' 

1918 

1917 

1918 

1 

1917 

1918 

inches 

inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

Inches 

1.') 

0.02 

1 

0.03 

17  i 

0.49 

1(> 

2 

0 . 23 

18 

t 

17 

3 

T 

19 

18 

4 

1.18 

20 

19 

0.43 

5 

0.09 

0.18 

21 

0.17 

20 

0.11 

0.92 

(i 

0.04 

1 22 

21 

7 

0.19 

1 23 

1 

22 

0 . 29 

0 . 05 

8 

0 . 50 

24 

0.42 

0.22 

28 

t 

9 

t 

0.02 

25 

24 

0..37 

10 

0.20 

26 

1 

1 

2n 

11 

0 . 09 

27 

0.37 

20 

0.  98 

12 

0.02 

28 

0.14 

T 

27 

0.03 

13 

i 29 

T 

28 

0.35 

14 

0.18 

0.84 

30 

15 

1 0.01 

0.03 

31 

t 

16 

'I'otal 

1.15 

2.40 

2.28 

1.15 

' 1.59 

0.22 

T — trace 

One  may  question  the  influence  of  humidity  on  the  percentage 
of  hatch  for  the  past  season  and  claim  that  the  smaller  percentage 
was  due  to  the  decidedly  cold  and  severe  winter  (1917-18).  The 
influema'  of  cold  weather  is  (piestioned  hy  the  author  for  two 
reasons.  In  tlie  flrst  place  from  50  to  55  [ter  cent  of  the  eggs  out- 
of-doors  split  tlieir  outer  coverings,  thus  giving  conclusive  evidence 
lhat  the.v  were  alive  and  [ ■repariiig  to  hatch.  In  the  second  place, 
(in  February  20,  eggs  were  collected  from  Jolin  Barclay’s  orchard 
and  brought  into  the  laboratory  (70°P\)  and  placed  in  a chamber 
which  continuously  registered  90  per  cent  moisture  or  even  greater. 
Of  these  eggs  50.5  per  cent  split  their  outer  shells  and  43.5  per  cent 
hatched;  while  a similar  lot  of  eggs  (500)  from  the  same  collection 
were  kept  out-of-doors  where  the  humidity  on  some  of  the  days 
(March  15-31,  3918)  registered  40  per  cent  or  below  at  mid-day, 
?ind  showed  only  a 29  per  cent  hatch,  or  a difference  of  14.5  per  cent 
when  compared  with  the  indoor  experiment.  This  difference  in 
percentage  of  hatch  is  accounted  for  by  the  decided  difference  in  the 
percentage  of  moisture. 

The  foregoing  experiment,  the  important  observations  on  the 
morphological  changes  which  take  place  in  the  egg  before  the 
nyni[)hs  emerge,  the  records  made  on  the  percentage  of  hatch  of 
.4.  ai'fiun  during  the  decidedly  different  seasons  of  1917  and  1918 
(.March  15-31  ),  the  i-e.sults  obtained  from  the  experiments  conducted 
with  controlled  moi.stures  in  the  incubators  during  1917,  and  the 
significant  facts  observed  with  skinned  and  normal  eggs  under 
laboratory  conditions,  make  us  conclude  that  the  percentage  of 
Imtch  among  (‘ggs  of  ap|)le  nphides  is  influenced  to  a considerable 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


21 


extent  by  weather  conditions,  especially  during  the  few  weeks 
previous  to  the  emergence  of  the  nymph.  In  brief,  the  existence 
of  high  evaporating  factors  during  the  dormant  season,  especially 
after  the  outer  egg  shell  has  split,  kills  a large  number  of  eggs 
which  would  normally  complete  the  process  of  hatching  in  weather 
with  low  evaporating  factors.  In  order  that  the  above  relationship 
between  the  percentage  of  hatch  and  the  condition  of  the  weather 
may  be  proved  and  its  significance  ascertained,  especially  in  regions 
where  the  average  humidity  is  low,  it  is  suggested  that  observations 
be  made  in  various  states,  on  the  percentage  of  hatch  for  the  various 
species  concerned. 

Temperature 

Temperature  has  a marked  and  peculiar  influence  upon  the 
liatching  of  the  eggs  of  all  three  species.  Some  of  these  influences 
have  been  mentioned.  In  1917  eggs  of  A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi  were 
brought  into  the  greenhouse  during  February  and  the  early  part  of 
March  (up  to  March  14)  and  these  failed  to  hatch,  while  eggs  of 
A.  avence  brought  into  the  greenhouse  at  the  same  time  showed  a 
normal  percentage  of  hatch.  During  1917-18  eggs  of  A.  aveme 
collected  in  November  and  placed  in  the  greenhouse  showed  a 
10  per  cent  hatch  during  the  first  week  in  February^  while  eggs 
collected  on  February  26,  and  put  in  a moist  chamber  in  the  labora- 
tory showed  a 43.5  per  cent  hatch.  This  difference  in  the  per- 
centage of  hatch  (also  true  for  other  experiments  during  December 
and  January)  ma}^  be  due  to  the  fact  that  an  exposure  to  low 
temperatures  is  beneficial  for  the  majority  of  the  eggs  of  A.  aveme. 
As  noted  before,  the  greenhouse  was  closed  early  in  February 
during  1918  and  the  transfer  of  the  eggs  to  a moist  tin  compart- 
ment in  the  laboratory  may  have  had  some  influence  on  the  per- 
centage of  hatch.  In  order  to  be  sure  of  the  above  statement  con- 
cerning the  eggs  of  A.  avence  it  will  be  necessary  to  repeat  these 
experiments.  Eggs  of  A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi  will  hatch  under 
laboratory  or  greenhouse  conditions  provided  they  are  not  brought 
into  the  laboratory  or  greenhouse  over  20  to  30  days  before  they 
normally  hatch  out-of-doors.  The  above  peculiarity  in  the  hatching 
of  the  eggs  has  also  been  noted  by  Baker  and  Turner  (2)  and  other 
investigators.  For  some  unknown  reason,  long  exposure  to  low  tem- 
peratures is  essential  for  the  normal  development  of  the  embryo  of 
A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi,  and  it  may  be  beneficial  for  the  majority 
of  the  eggs  of  A.  avence. 

Temperature  also  influences  the  egg  when  it  is  preparing  t(^ 
hatch.  It  was  repeatedly  noted  that  the  percentage  of  eggs  with 
a split  outer  covering  would  always  show  a decided  increase  during 
or  following  a day  or  two  of  exceptionally  warm  weather.  This 
was  particularly  true  during  the  latter  part  of  February  and  the 


22 


Bulletin  332 


early  part  of  March.  When  the  nymphs  were  emerging  (March 
21  to  April  5)  the  rate  of  emergence  was  influenced  by  the  tempera- 
ture. On  warm  days  the  greatest  number  came  out.  The  eggs  of 
A.  avenm  started  to  hatch  on  March  21  during  the  past  season, 
while  in  1917  the  first  nymphs  were  seen  on  ]March  28.  This  dif- 
ference is  undoubtedly  due  to  the  dilference  in  the  temperature 
mentioned  above  for  the  last  two  weeks  in  March  for  1917  and  1918. 

After  the  nymphs  have  emerged  they  are  somewhat  susceptible 
to  low  temperatures.  At  least  it  Avas  noted  that  on  A.pril  6,  1918, 
in  many  unsprayed  orchards,  especially  around  Riverton,  N.  J., 
the  nymphs  of  A.  avenoi  were  very  abundant,  each  bud  on  some 
trees  showing  ten  or  more.  On  April  9-11  a severe  drop  in  tem- 
perature took  place  (enough  to  frost  the  edges  of  the  small  pro- 
truding leaves),  and  a heavy  snow  and  sleet  storm  accompanied 
the  change  in  temperature.  On  April  18  these  trees  Avere  examined 
and  the  lieaAW  infestation  was  reduced  beloAV  the  danger  point;  in 
fact,  in  some  orchards  adjacent  to  the  DelaAvare  rAer  no  aphides 
could  be  found.  The  results  of  spraying  experiments  in  this  section 
of  the  state  and  likeAvise  in  other  portions  during  the  past  season 
Avere  not  as  striking  as  in  1917,  on  account  of  the  storm.  Possibly 
the  sleet  and  snoAV  AA^ere  as  beneficial  in  killing  the  nymphs  as  the 
cold  AA'eather. 

Contact  Insecticides  and  Other  Chemicals 

The  foregoing  morphological  and  ecological  stud}"  of  the  eggs 
of  apple  plant  lice  sIioavs  conclusively  that  they  are  not  as  firm  and 
impenetrable  as  some  entomologists  Avould  have  us  believe,  and 
furthermore  they  are  especially  susceptible  to  ditferences  in  moisture 
and  temperature  a feAV  Aveeks  previous  to  the  emergence  of  the 
nymph  and  also  as  the  nymph  emerges.  These  facts  naturally  lead 
us  to  assume  that  certain  common  contact  insecticides  and  various 
chemicals  applied  just  before  the  nymphs  emerge  should  affect  the 
eggs  and  cut  doAvn  the  percentage  of  hatch.  This  is  unquestionably 
the  case,  for  a number  of  investigators  using  lime-sulfur  at  Avinter 
strength,  crude  oil  emulsion  and  other  sprays  have  met  Avith  success 
in  killing  the  aphid  in  the  egg  stage  Avhen  the  spray  Avas  applied 
late  in  the  season,  in  most  cases  just  as  the  buds  Avere  bursting.  A 
brief  revieAv  of  these  investigations  has  been  made  by  P.  R.  Jones 
(12).  Dr.  T.  J.  Ileadlee’s  experiments  Avith  lime-sulfur  in  1916 
at  John  Barclay’s  orchard  also  shoAV  that  the  rosy  aphis,  A.  sorhi, 
is  killed  in  the  egg  stage. 

The  exact  physical  and  chemical  effect  of  the  various  sprays 
on  the  egg  has  never  been  explained  and,  so  far  as  is  knoAvn,  is 
still  more  or  less  a mystery.  Tn  order  to  understand  the  chemical 
reaction  of  various  substances  on  the  egg-shell,  it  is  necessary  to 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


23 


have  some  knowledge  of  the  chemical  nature  of  the  layers  about 
the  egg.  A few  qualitative- tests  have  been  conducted  with  this 
point  in  view,  but  as  yet  nothing  definite  has  been  determined. 
Prom  a physical  standpoint  the  effect  of  certain  substances  has 
been  observed  and  these  will  be  discussed  briefly. 

In  order  to  control  the  aphid  in  the  egg  stage  the  material  used 
must  prevent  the  nymph  from  hatching  or  it  may  be  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  kill  the  nymph  as  it  hatches.  The  preventive  may  act 
in  several  ways.'  Any  substance  which  will  harden  the  outer  semi- 
transparent shell  and  thus  makes  it  impossible  for  the  nymph  to 
emerge  would  be  satisfactory,  or  the  material  used  could  have  the 
opposite  effect,  that  is,  soften  or  dissolve  the  outer  layer  and  thus 
expose  the  inner,  pigmented  layer  to  evaporating  factors  such  as 
wind,  heat  or  low  humidity.  Furthermore,  many  substances  are 
splendid  dessicating  agents  and  any  material  possessing  this  quality 
might  be  able  to  extract  the  water  content  of  the  ovum  or  embryo 
and  thus  prevent  further  development.  Again,  the  use  of  any 
toxic  substance  which  will  penetrate  the  egg  coverings  and  attack 
the  living  embryo  would  naturally  be  a control  measure.  Another 
possible  means  of  control  would  be  the  discovery  of  some  chemical 
which  will  loosen  the  egg  from  the  twig  and  cause  it  to  fall  to  the 
ground. 

Dormant  lime-sulfur  apparently  hardens  the  outer  covering, 
at  least  it  was  noted  that  a number  of  treated  eggs  did  not  com- 
pletely collapse  and  in  many  cases  the  outer  layer  retained  its 
normal  shape  while  the  black  pigmented  layer  and  the  contents  of 
the  embryo  within  were  completely  shriveled.  Such  eggs  are  easily 
recognized  in  that  they  are  lighter  in  color  because  of  the  air  space 
within.  Besides  this  hardening  effect,  lime-sulfur  seems  to  act  as  a 
dessicating  agent  and  it  may  also  actually  penetrate  all  the  layers 
and  serve  as  a toxic  substance  on  the  embryo. 

So  far  as  could  be  seen  with  a microscope,  no  decided  visible 
effect  was  evident  in  eggs  treated  with  other  common  contact  in- 
secticides such  as  nicotine,  soap  solutions  and  miscible  oils.  In  some 
cases  where  eggs  were  treated  with  miscible  oil,  particularly  oils 
which  possess  some  crude  carbolic  derivatives,  they  appeared  to  be 
more  glossy.  So  far  as  is  known,  the  above  substances  probably 
act  as  toxic  agents  which  kill  by  penetrating  the  layers  of  the  egg 
and  attacking  the  embryo. 

A weak  solution  of  crude  carbolic  acid  will  soften  and  ap- 
parently disintegrate  the  outer  shell  of  the  aphid  egg.  In  several 
experiments  the  eggs  of  A.  avencc  and  A.  pomi  were  sprayed  with  a 
1 per  cent  and  a 2 per  cent  solution  of  crude  carbolic  acid,  and  with 
varying  strengths  of  cresol  (U.  S.  P.)  plus  enough  laundry  soap 
to  break  the  surface  tension.  In  a few  minutes  after  treatment 


Results  of  Sfrayjxg  Expehuments  With  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae  and  A.  I^)mi  (A.  sorbi)  for  1917 


24 


Bulletin  332 


a> 

Ol'O 
re  <i> 

Co 

iMC£>oooooio«MOicxuo(Ma50050ooooooooeoc£)03i-icooiHOireooooa> 

a>-M 
u re 

Q. 

Tt^C^fMCOOOO^jCiOOit^t^^OrH  0^0  O iH  O O #<1  CS|  O 00  ^ O 00  O 00  05  O CO  CO 

OOCO^^^^CSIIO'^’^CO'^^  C<1 

1 

— s: 

1 

T Ota 
Hate 

THC£)'ct<t--«»<O(MiMOa3a5TrOr-(OOOi-IOOr-liHCDir5r-t'^C0O'^Oa5OOC<JCcj 
05  r-l 00  CO  <ca  CO  0<l  rH  CO  ■cf  rH  ^ rH 

“ 

0 ® 
hUJ 

1 

ooa;‘OoooGO^iCrH’^'«^csic^<Mcoc<iLCcoo*^ooa5i>*coa5t>»{Ma5COiiOc<iir:;(Mi-i 

o^i'-*»oiit^LOLr5c^iooo'^iO'^'^'^ioiOLCicoi-Hoo'^'^LO'^iOOoi>-LOir: 

— ^ ^ 2 fo  --0  ’ t'"  >'•  ® "-n  ?r>  CO  o o o o t- 1 

7^01  i-Hi— I.— Ii-(r0  lrHi-lC<?CO 


U) 

o 

(U 

Q. 

to 


CjCj^cacjCjCj  cjcjcjcacjcjcjcuci)!^^/  cucjcjcjca 

c3  a C3  e 2 2 2._.  . 222'^222'^2'=  '’•. ^ 2 « ® ®. 

Sc^ScjScjC'HHCSCcjCoCuSCC^ciiSSs'iiS'SjCSSxg 

T-,  ^ f-  w r-i  IX  C)  o O Tx  Cx  Cx  tx  Tx  Tx  »x  w - Ti  o o O fJ  Tx  ri  ix  E<  o O O 

■Sc;3c;'=c3<=^i:^c_c:c:c3gc3ac5.c3c3;xc:j;:,4;^4;;^cc3cc3cji.jg.*, 


Cu  Cj 
C3  g 
K g 

Cx  <x 


-r^'r'rn’,'rn;^,-r'r-rT;'r'rT;’T;"T;'r'T"T;-i,^>T’r-T;’T:r;xTr'T^Tr''r'crU 


O 

o 

o 

o 


>^ 

re 

s. 

a 

CO 


c-i 


K K 


•loocooooo  ;|. 
rt?'p'=5 

' C.Otx'^^CjXX'^  I I 


uu.i.uu%.^ 

3d::d3P.-;2 


73  OT  02  .=«  M C«  . 


C!  'hc'fcc  h£|6JDb£b£^^<12  1) 
— — — — — — ——  S'iOr-CCCCCrrI— i 


E o X 
5 UJ 

I z 


r-  01  M 1*  lit  CO  I X or:  rM  O CO 


[ xt*  10  C'~  c>0  05  o T-l  03  CO  ■'1 
I C-l  01  '^^  'M  M '='>  CO  CO  CO  CO  CC 


:COCCCCCCCCCC 


:00000! 


34.6 


Sthoies  on  E(;(js  of  Appt.e  Plant  Lice 


OOCOt^C'JOr^'^'M’^Oi-HOOO'MOCOC'tOOOO’^t^OC^C'.OOOCtOOOtCCCT 


< o ^1  O »C  CC  O O ^ • 


lOC^  C>tO  Oi 


' O O ^ 1-1  CC  O CC  T 


lO  OCCCCC'lOCl 


I O O Ol  CC  T-I  r-  i-(  ' 


M ^ t- -ri  O I-I  O 1 
o ut  o cr.  1-1  lo  1 


^ ex  ^ ^ ^ C-  Ci  O ic  O 'M  c:  O 


' cc  cc  c«t  re 


o cr  o I-  t-i-  t-  ei  o o c:  o c:  o — — I - '^U- 

ei  ri  ei  t—  rt  cc  ce  rt  cc  re  cj  s^i  'M  i- 


' <M  O C:  OC  Le  LO 


cj:  'M  — o O 


: ^ as. 
l^<<- 


tj 


H e C 
2222222 
“ S S ^ 


lij 


tscarSeceB^''-  scQc  eeeseeQC 

ss:=;~ss  = =;«  2---~  =:  ~ = ~ ~ s 

■'  "'  O o C>  fa  ra  t-  fi  r^  (J  C-  r.  t;  t ^ ra  t;  i;  £;  >*  - Q O K K ~ o O O O O O O S2 
- - - - - ?3  c c e - a e G g g c a B * - - - - - 


~ ^ ^ 


o 

lo  ^ 


o o 

O 

^ ei 


rt  d aj 

ww5 


.-a,.t,-^ 


G e « c c c a 


IC 


o.a; .a  0^0;::; 
C =_§  o 2 oj 

P I g s ?.  s 


^ (U  ^ a; 0)  X! 

-573-C'a^'C  p 

S S S S C ? h 

O o O O 


2 <>  ! 


o o_o_o  _o 
’ooo’o’o 

5 S S 5 

o o o o o 
O)  0)  CJ  O <la 
'T'C'C'C'C 

? ^ P ? s 

o o o o o 


T.P 
P 3; 


:1'2 


u ” — < 
ci  . . 

'^60 
0)  o o 
'O. 


00.S.S 

’■sill 


55^'^ 

vj  m 

2 ^ ^ ^ 


‘ o IC  o O l-C  o o o 

J ^1  ei  lA  T-<  ^1  r-i  ei 


So,  \l 

T^rH  ■ 2 

d r 

II  il 

03  r c- 
O o — ^ 
— 

~ c 

w 0/  c 

iil| 

S '3  ^ 

• o c 

. w w " S 
'-'  o m 
o o 52  w 3.^;' 

:3  sa  f- 


“ ^ D s ^ 2 i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s a a £ p' d s'  S'  a s ^ s ^ a 

g'E'S.c.o^^’P  a'P’S.-P  -o'S"-:?'g^7;§a  S;abj3iJ^bJ0bcb/]&£bJ3bCb£=?  p'ff'Ea- 
- .-  r .-S5  . - r. 

- - - bC-^  bX)  ^ y 


-jO-5'^  ' oa)ooo- 
SoUOOOcj'^g^^^'^'^C 


- 6 6 

pCi)OC.)^Qj{^^i^.^^  <■  -^  - - - - ^ — ' ' •'  •'  ■; 

bJOo  o o Tro o o o bi^  0000  bj]^  2 S .-  S S S .bi  -bri  _ 

0 = 0 5oo5o  = = .SggSS„g|1oO|oo|co|52«^-gS 

gplSss. 


j e-i  ei  ej  ' 


J 'M  ' 


r-r-"r-r'-isi£|5iiiii«fa&ssiii^ig'g'tg§gississ|E5&j;; 

%■,„■«,■>, -a.  o o o o o o o o o o g 


O)  0)  !li  OJ  0) 

13  73'^'^'^ 


c3  oj  Oj  cS  o3 
00000 
xn^Jim’Tirsi 


33  0.aa^&^37rTb 

cooo'gggg^lgocooooo 


I t- 00  Oi 


, _ . I'-S  io  00  9 000  000  c £s|S^rtPd 

gocooooocci  I 'JL'''ill9=3~.2:3(^o9;s 
^ K 3 w M K M w 3 wjcxrxi'C.cxJx:  — — m w o 

“ .S a . 22  ““-gg  og  . - ^ 

jdh^dr^PlP3JH2dt2lfcfcfcEplHfeClHEtHplHfej^COa.'a!jH4^d 


O T-t  CM  eva  -t-  ..7  TO  !>.  OC  T.  O ;-)  aj  -r  ■•  1 cc  so  C.  O iH  a ' eo  1 9 2^  2l 
*9  ^ ‘a  Lo  Lo  ira  Lo  i;a  1^1 10  TO  ^9  ^9  ^ as  TO  TO  CO  f'-  h- ' ' • ‘ , *^7  , 7 ^7” 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO^^'^CO 


-Greenhouse  and  O — Out-of-door  Experiments. 


26 


Bulletin  332 


the  brittle  outer  layer,  split  or  whole,  was  softened  and  wrinkled 
(plate  1,  fig.  13)  and  could  be  easily  removed.  Furthermore,  it 
was  noted  that  in  all  experiments  where  crude  carbolic  acid  was 
used  as  a spray,  especially  in  strengths  greater  than  1 per  cent, 
the  eggs  had  an  unusually  bright  shiny  appearance  after  the  spray 
had  dried.  This  glossy  appearance  indicates  that  the  semi-  trans- 
parent outer  layer  has  undergone  some  sort  of  a change.  It  was 
also  observed  that  many  eggs  with  split  outer  coverings  treated  with 
crude  carbolic  acid  and  cresols  shriveled  along  the  meso-dorsal  line 
(plate  1,  fig.  14).  This  type  of  shrivel  which  also  takes  place  to 
some  extent  with  other  treatments  indicates  that  the  pigmented 
layer  of  an  egg  showing  a split  outer  shell  is  particularly  susceptible 
to  various  chemicals.  Furthermore,  treated  eggs  with  a whole  outer 
covering  frequently  shriveled  in  a like  manner.  This  indicates  that 
the  outer  shell  is  weakest  along  the  meso-dorsal  line  and  any  foreign 
inatcrial  which  can  soften  or  disintegrate  the  outer  layer  would 
naturally  penetrate  this  portion  of  the  egg  first  and  cause  it  to  show 
its  early  stage  of  shriveling  along  the  least  resistant  portion. 

A number  of  other  chemicals  were  tried  and  their  effect  noted, 
])ut  their  mode  of  attack  has  not  been  observed  with  sufficient  care 
to  warrant  a statement  at  this  time.  Possibly  it  would  be  worth 
while  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  sodium  hydroxide  seems  to 
react  upon  the  glutinous  layer  in  such  a manner  as  to  loosen  the 
egg  from  the  tree  and  cause  it  to  fall  to  the  ground.  At  least  a 
large  number  of  eggs  were  lost  in  all  the  experiments  with  sodium 
hydroxide. 

A large  number  of  experiments  were  conducted  with  various 
common  sprays  and  other  chemicals  during  March  and  April,  1917, 
and  the  results  of  the  more  important  of  these  are  recorded  in  table 
4.  The  predominant  species  of  eggs  used  in  the  various  experi- 
ments is  indicated  in  the  table.  In  the  experiments  with  A.  avencE 
a few  eggs  of  A.  sorbi  were  present,  but,  so  far  as  is  known,  these 
never  exceeded  15  per  cent  of  the  total  number,  while  in  the  ex- 
periments with  A.  pomi  the  eggs  of  A.  so7'bi  ran  close  to  30  per  cent 
(at  least  a number  of  counts  of  newly-hatched  stem  mothers  gave 
this  approximate  percentage).  This  percentage  of  the  eggs  of 
A.  sorbi  in  the  experiments  shows  that  the  eggs  of  this  species 
resemble  those  of  A.  avence  and  A.  pomi  in  their  response  to  various 
stimuli ; however,  there  is  apparently  some  difference  in  the  suscep- 
tibility of  the  different  species.  At  least  there  is  good  indication 
of  this  if  one  compares  the  percentages  of  hatch  among  the  different 
s|)ecies  under  similar  treatments.  A.  avence  is  probably  somewhat 
more  susceptible  than  either  A.  pomi  or  A.  sorbi.  Another  point 
of  iiiterest  in  respect  to  susceptibility  is  the  fact  that  all  eggs  of 


Studies  on  P]ggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


27 


one  species  are  not  alike ; some  are  less  resistant  than  others,  conse- 
(juently  some  are  killed  by  weaker  strengths  of  insecticides.  This 
is  well  illustrated  in  all  experiments,  particularly  in  the  experi- 
ments where  the  percentage  of  hatch  runs  between  10  and  25  per 
cent  among  treated  eggs. 

The  percentages  of  hatch  or  kill  in  all  the  spraying  experiments 
in  the  greenhouse  or  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  for  the  two  sea- 
sons are  figured  on  the  basis  of  considering  the  number  of  eggs 
present  at  tlie  time  the  final  observations  Avere  made.  In  a former 
])aper  (19)  tlie  percentage  of  hatch  Avas  figured  on  the  basis  of 
considering  the  percentage  of  hatcii  in  respective  checks  for  each 
set  of  experiments  as  100  per  cent,  and  then  the  number  of  eggs 
hatched  in  the  various  experiments  coiopared  Avitli  Ihe  check.  Ex- 
l)erience  has  shown  that  this  method  is  subject  to  considerable 
variation  due  to  the  variation  in  the  percentage  of  hatched  eggs 
in  the  checks;  conseciuently,  this  method  Avas  abandoned  for  the 
above  mentioned  form.  In  all  the  tables  the  percentage  of  hatched 
eggs  is  given  for  each  experiment  and  one  may  obtain  the  percentage 
of  killed  or  dead  eggs  by  subtracting  the  percentage  of  hatched  eggs 
from  100  per  cent.  The  results  given  in  table  4 Avill  be  considered 
in  the  various  discussions  on  the  different  insecticides  and  chemicals. 

Upon  completing  the  investigations  on  the  aphid  eggs  for  the 
season  of  1916-17,  it  Avas  observed  that  the  susceptibility  of  the 
eggs  to  various  insecticides  and  different  percentages  of  humidity 
seemed  to  be  greatest  just  prior  to  the  emergence  of  the  nymph. 
AVith  this  obseiwation  in  mind,  a large  series  of  spraying  experi- 
ments, starting  Avitli  November  30,  1917  and  continuing  until  April 
1,  1918,  AA^ere  conducted  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  for  tne 
purpose  of  determining  the  relative  susceptibility  of  the  eggs 
throughout  the  dormant  season.  ' 

Diagram  1,  by  an  intersection  of  plotted  lines  with  perpen- 
dicular lines  (representing  dates  of  application)  shows  the  results 
of  the  more  important  experiments  conducted  with  the  eggs  of 
A.  avence.  The  dates  at  the  top  of  the  chart  indicate  the  time  of 
application  of  the  Amrious  substances  used.  Other  applications 
Avere  made  throughout  the  month  of  December  and  January,  but 
the  results  of  the  spraying  experiments  for  December  15  are  typical 
of  all  these.  The  points  of  intersection  of  the  various  types  of 
plotted  liTies  with  the  perpendicular  date  lines  indicate  the  per- 
centage of  hatch  if  one  examines  the  column  of  figures  to  the  left, 
and  the  percentage  of  dead  eggs  if  one  examines  the  column  of 
figures  to  the  right.  Each  treatment  or  substance  used  as  a spray 
is  given  a definite  letter,  the  explanation  of  AAdiich  may  be  found 
at  the  bottom  of  the  chart.  The  chart  also  shows  at  the  top  the 
source  or  orchard  Avhere  the  eggs  Avere  collected  and  on  the  bottom 


28 


But.letin  282 


line  th('  pereenta^'e  of  e^i^'s  showing  a si)lit  outer  shell  at  the  time 
the  treatment  was  <:«'iven.  The  average  pereentag-e  of  hatch,  48 
f)er  cent,  or  pereentage  of  dead  eggs,  52  per  cent,  for  the  untreated 
eggs,  or  checks  is  represented  hy  a straight  line. 


Diagram  1.  Chart  showing  progressive  decrease  in  the  percentage 
of  hatched  eggs  or  increase  in  the  percentage  of  dead  eggs  with  the 
various  sprays  when  they  are  applied  nearer  the  time  when  tlie  nymphs 
emerge  (Emergence  March  21  (o  April  5). 


a — Lime-sulfur,  1-9 
b — Lime-sulfur,  1-9  plus  nicotine, 
1-500 

c^ — “Scalecide,”  1-15 
d — “Scalecide,”  1-40  plus  cresol, 

1% 

e — “Scalecide,”  1-15  plus  ciude 
carbolic,  1'/ 

f — F.  o.  soap,  1 gm.-5  0 c.  c.  plus 
phenol,  1% 

g — F.  o.  soap,  1 gm.-5  0 c.  c.  plus 
nicotine,  1-5  00 


h - F.  o.  soap,  1 gm.-50  c.  c.  plus 
crude  carbolic,  1% 
i Laundry  soap,  1 gm.-200  c.  c. 
plus  ci’esol,  1% 

j-  F.  o.  soap,  1 gm.-lOO  c.  c.  plus 
crude  carbolic,  0.5o; 
k~  F.  o.  soap,  1 gm.-lOO  c.  c.  plus 
cresol,  l'/(, 

1 — Fish  oil  soap  (solid),  1 gni.- 
5 0 c.  c. 

m Resin  fish  oil  soap,  1 gm-5  0 

c.  c. 

n Nicoliue  resinate,  1-500 


Several  interesting  and  import  ant  points  are  lu’onght  out  in 
this  chart,  hut  tlie  most  striking  and  signifiiund  one  is  the  fact  that 
almost  till  the  substances  used  show  a gradual  progressive  decrease 
in  tlie  number  of  eggs  hatched  (or  vice  v(*rsa,  a progressive  increase 
in  the  number  of  dead  eggs),  when  the  spray  is  applied  m^arer  the 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Appi;E  Plant  Lice 


29 


time  when  the  nyniplis  emerge'.  In  all  the  (*x[)eriinents,  no  matter 
what  snbstanee  was  nsetl,  the  percentage  ot*  hatched  eggs  was  less 
when  the  substance  was  applied  on  March  23  than  when  ajiplied 
in  December,  fl  a unary,  Eebrnary  or  .March  4. 

Briefly  stated,  the  greatest  number  ol‘  eggs  are  killed  in  all 
the  experiments  when  the  siiray  is  applied  just  [irioi*  to  the 
emergence  of  the  nymph.  This  gradual  increase  in  susceptibility 
is  dependent  upon  the  increase  in  the  percentage  of  eggs  showing 
split  outer  shells.  • On  the  basis  of  the  facts  shown  in  the  chart  and 
from  foregoing  observations  on  the  morphology  and  behavior  of 
the  egg  previous  to  the  emergence  of  the  nymph,  we  may  conclude 
that  the  greater  the  percentage  of  eggs  possessing  split  outer  shells 
the  greater  will  be  the  percentage  of  dead  eggs  when  contact  in- 
secticides are  used. 


Llue-Sulfur 

A large  number  of  experiments  were  conducted  on  the  eggs 
of  all  the  species  in  the  greenhouse,  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory, 
and  in  various  orchards  during  the  past  two  seasons,  using  different 
strengths  of  lime-sulfur  and  lime-sulfur  combined  with  nicotine. 
During  February,  March  and  April,  1917,  experiments  G-12  to  (1-17 
and  0-18  to  0-25  (table  4),  were  performed  in  the  greenhouse  (G) 
and  out-of-doors  (0)  with  the  eggs  of  all  three  species,  and  the 
results  show  a very  decided  reduction  in  the  percentage  of  hatched 
eggs  and  in  some  instances  a complete  kill.  Eggs  of  A.  avenw 
sprayed  with  lime-sulfur  1-8  and  kept  under  greenhouse  conditions 
or  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  showed  a very  small  percentage 
of  hatch  or  a complete  kill  (3.9  to  0.0.  per  cent  hatch).  Eggs  of 
.4.  pomi  receiving  similar  treatment  showed  a 2.0  to  7.3  per  cent 
hatch.  A comparison  of  these  percentages  among  the  two  pre- 
dominant species  in  the  resiiective  experiments  shows  that  the  eggs 
of  A.  avence  are  more  susceptible  to  lime-sulfur  than  A.  ponii. 
Lime-sulfur  1-6  and  greater  strengths  gave  better  control  than  1-8 
or  1-9. 

In  a few  ex])eriments  lime-snlfur  was  combined  with  sodium 
chloride,  a pyridine  solution  and  nicotine  sulfate.  The  results  of 
the  experiments  with  the  first  two  chemicals  mentioned  are  dis- 
cussed under  otlnu*  cliemicals.  During  1917  one  experiment  (exj). 
0-25.  tal)le  4)  was  conducted  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  witli 
the  eggs  of  .4.  })o)tn  where  nicotine,  'Mllack-leaf-40”,  was  used  at 
tlie  rate  of  1-500  and  tlie  ])ercentage  of  liatch  was  0.9  ])('r  cent, 
while  another  exjunanumt  with  lime-sulfur,  1-8  (exp.  0.24,  table  41 
gave  a 4.6  per  c(mt  hatch.  These  results  indicated  the  ])ossibility 
of  obtaining  a mor(‘  perfect  control  when  a ('oud)ination  s])ray  was 
used,  conse(piently  a large  nnmber  of  (‘xjxnaments  were  conducted 


TABLE  5 

Experiments  With  Lime-Sulfur  and  Lime-Sulfur  Combined  With  Nicotine  ('‘Black-leaf  40”)  on 

Selected  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae, 


80 


I 


Bulletin  332 


X 

o 

<1> 

s: 

O 

62.2 

t 

47.1 

46.0 

33.3 

47.6 

45.7 

44.2 

32.6 

sBB3 

|b:^oj.  pub  p^^o:^BH 

! 134  h 

215 

116  h 

i 246 

2d 

00  00 

T— 1 

LO  LO 
-tr  eo 

rC 

•M  O 
O CO 

.c! 

CiiH 
00  O 

<N| 

34  h 

104 

Lime-sulfur,  1-9 
j “Black-leaf  40”, 

1-1,000 

paqo^BH 

aBB5.uaoj0d 

14.7 

h 

1 

1 

1 o 
o 

1 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

SEBa 

|b;ox  pub  paqo:^BH 

4 h 

81 

i 14  h 
i 95 

i Oh 

108  j 

1 0 li 

103 

0 h 

105 

O LO 

Ooo 

! 

Lime-sulfur,  1-9  I 

“Black-leaf  40”,  ! 

1-500 

psqo?.BH 

aBB^uaojSd 

16.  6 

c- 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o- 

o 

o 

IS 

1 

sBBa 

|b;oj_  puB  p9t|o:^BH 

28  h 
140 

11  h 

154 

1 h 
172 

0 h 
114 

0 h 

103 

o 

o 

r-H 

0 h 

112 

0 h 

115 

Lime-sulfur,  1-9 
‘.‘Black- leaf  40", 
1-250 

paqDiSH 

^BB:^u9^J^d 

00 

O'} 

1 

1 

O 

o 

1 

sBBa 

|b;oj.  puB  p9L|o:^BH 

(M  O 

i 

4 h 

94 

= 5: 

1 

! 

j 

j Lime-sulfur, 

p^q^:^BH  i 
9BB;uaojad 

1 

• i 

! 

o 

o 

O 

O 

tH 

T— 1 

o 

o 

sBBa 

|B;ox  PUB  P9Lio;bh  j 

! 

1 (M 

oo 

0 h 

109 

2d 

00 

0 h 

110 

00 

0 h 

89 

Lime-sulfur, 

1-9 

P9L|o;bh  ^ 
9BB;U90J9d 

38.6 

00 

CO 

, 00 

12.1 

o 

LlO 

“ 1 
" 1 

Oi 

o 

sBBa  1 

|b:^ox  Pub  paqo^BH  ! 

1-  00 

38  h 

208 

8 h 
164 

1 

(MCi 
iH  Oi 

8 h 

85 

5 h 

110 

4 h 

104 

1 h 

104 

Spray 

1 

sBBa  ^0  aojnos 

puB  paXBJds  a^BQ 

Dec.  15,  1917 
Smith’s 

Dec.  15,  1917 
Barclay’s 

Feb.  19,  1918 
Barclay’s 

1 

c 

"■‘.5 

Mar.  11,  1918 
Smith’s 

Mar.  14.  1918 
Barclay’s 

Mar.  19,  1918 
Lippincott’s 

Mar.  22.  1918 
Barclay’s 

—hatched  egg's. 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Pl.vnt  Lice 


31 


with  varying  strengths  of  lime-sulfur  alone  and  in  combination 
with  nicotine  during  the  past  season  (1917-18).  The  results  of 
these  experiments  conducted  on  the  eggs  of  A.  avencB  out-of-doors 
at  the  laboratory  are  sliown  in  condensed  form  in  table  5.  Some 
of  the  series  of  experiments  are  also  shown  in  diagram  1 (p.  27). 

Table  5 shows  in  the  left  column  the  date  of  application  of  the 
spray  and  the  source  of  the  eggs  for  each  experiment  in  the  various 
series,  while  the  top  line  gives  the  treatment  in  each  series.  The 
table  also  shows  for  each  experiment  the  number  of  eggs  hatched 
h,  the  total  number  of  eggs  in  the  experiment  and  the  percentage 
of  hatch.  If  one  chooses  to  express  the  effectiveness  of  the  dif- 
ferent sprays  in  terms  of  the  percentage  of  kill,  subtract  the  per- 
centage of  hatch  from  100  per  cent.  The  following  example  ex- 
plains what  is  shown  for  each  experiment.  The  experiment  in  the 
upper  left  corner  shows  that  the  eggs  were  collected  from  Smith’s 
orchard  and  sprayed  on  December  15  with  lime-sulfur  1-9.  After 
they  had  completed  hatching,  72  had  hatched  out  of  186,  or  38.6 
per  cent.  Subtracting  38.6  per  cent  from  100  per  cent  gives  61.4 
per  cent  killed.  This  experiment  alone  shows  the  i.neffectiveness 
of  applying  lime-sulfur  to  eggs  during  the  month  of  December. 
The  same  thing  also  holds  for  the  month  of  November,  January  and 
the  first  part  of  February.  The  results  of  the  various  series  of 
experiments  for  the  above  months  are  not  shown  in  the  table,  since 
they  are  similar  to  those  obtained  in  December. 

The  table  summarizes  the  results  of  the  experiments  conducted 
out-of-doors  with  lime-sulfur  and  nicotine,  consequently  it  will  not 
be  necessary  to  give  a detailed  discussion  of  the  various  interesting 
experiments.  An  examination  of  the  table  shows  off-hand,  in  all 
the  series  of  experiments  where  the  same  material  was  used,  that 
the  greatest  reduction  in  the  percentage  of  hatch  always  occurred 
where  the  treatments  were  applied  near  the  time  of  the  emergence 
of  the  nymph.  These  observations,  then,  fully  agree  with  a former 
statement — the  greater  the  percentage  of  eggs  showing  a split  outer 
shell,  the  greater  the  percentage  of  kill.  Lime-sulfur  1-9  during  the 
past  season  did  not  kill  100  per  cent  of  the  eggs  in  any  one  ex- 
periment; however,  it  did  kill  99.1  per  cent  on  i\Iarch  22;  but  lime- 
sulfur  1-6  was  more  effective,  and  in  two  experiments  during  March 
killed  100  per  cent  of  the  eggs.  Lime-sulfur  1-9  combined  with 
nicotine  1-500  or  1-1000  -killed  100  per  cent  of  the  eggs  when 
applied  during  the  month  of  ]\Iarch.  According  to  these  experi- 
ments nicotine  at  the  rate  of  1-1000  when  combined  with  lime-sulfur 
1-9  is  just  as  effective  in  killing  the  eggs  as  nicotine  at  the  rate  of 
1-500.  This  may  be  tnie  for  eggs  of  A.  avence,  but  when  one  wishes 
to  kill  100  per  cent  of  the  nymphs  that  have  hatched,  the  nicotine 
should  be  used  at  the  rate  of  1-500,  as  shown  by  Dr.  T.  J.  Headlee 
in  experiments  conducted  on  apple  plant  lice  during  1916. 


82 


Bulletin  832 


Orchard  Experiments 

During  the  past  two  seasons  the  author  has  made  detailed 
records  on  results  obtained  in  various  orchards  throughout  the 
state,  and  we  are  indebted  to  various  owners  and  managers  of 
orchards  for  cooperation  in  this  work.  In  1917  careful  observa- 
tions were  made  at  Mr.  John  IT.  Barclay’s  orchard.  Mr.^  Barclay 
delayed  the  spraying  with  dormant  lime-sulfur  1-9  until  the  buds 
started  to  swell,  in  order  that  the  spray  miglit  be  applied  near  the 

TABLE  () 

Effect  of  Dormant  Lime-Sulfur  1-9  on  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae 
During  the  Hatching  Period,  at  John 
II.  Barclay’s  Orchard 

(1917) 


•D 

0) 

rc 


o 

<U  0) 


ns  o 


DO 


■D 

0) 

> 


<u  a) 
•H  w 

re 


QO 


"O 

<u  a; 

Q..C 


re 

s_  w 
(D  O) 

n o 
Eia 

IS 

Z o 


rr.  ^ 

^UJ 


■Q  o 
EZ 

D 

Z O 


u T3 
<U  V 
Q-v 
> 

’OZ 

cx: 

rec/) 

t-  w 
C5) 
■2  O) 

Eu 

3 

z'S 


Spi-ayed  Apiil  4 and 

Uollecded  April  4 

April 

April 

4 

1 1 

,'>04 

■,()4 

in; 

2:5. 2 ' 

1 1!) 

184 

;i(:.2'/ 

4') 

8.9% 

204 

40.5% 

204 

07.4%, 

Sprayed  April  2 and 
Collected  April  14 

April 

d; 

1 ■ 5114 

118 

I 

11 

2% 

435 

77% 

(dieck:  (Collected 

Maieh  21 

Aindl 

April 

1 1 

:i(;o 

:!(;o 

10;:  ‘ 

2S..27r 

118 

I ;i2% 

in; 

22% 

4 

1% 

141 

29% 

228 

00.1%. 

Check.  Collected 

.\pril 

r, 

itiii 

*^7;“ 

ni; 

125 

".VP/ 

14C 

27%, 

March  24 

April 

11 

4(;(i 

29  !> 

10 

157  ^ 

(14.  19? 

2.1% 

22.7  % 

hatching  period  of  A.  sorbi.  Dr.  Ileadlee’s  observations  show  that 
during  191()  the  rosy  aphis  started  to  hatch  on  April  15  in  this 
orchard.  Dormant  lime-sulfur  1-9  was  sprayed  on  tlie  trees  west 
of  the  lious(*  on  March  81,  191  I,  and  on  the  lilock  east  of  the  house 
on  April  2,  1917.  To  onr  surprise,  it  was  discovered  that  the  eggs 
were  actively  hatching  at  this  time,  but  the  nynii)hs  proved  to  be 
A.  aveiur.  The  ont-of-door  experiments  at  the  laboratory  showed 
SOUK*  hatch  on  March  80  and  over  20  per  cent  had  hatched  by 
A[)ril  2.  .Mr.  Barclay  continued  to  put  on  the  lime-sulfur  after 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


33 


April  2 but  added  “ Blaek-leaf  40”  at  the  rate  of  1-500  in  order 
to  kill  the  nymphs.  Lime-sulfur  1-0  alone  will  not  kill  all  the 
nymphs  of  any  of  the  three  species.  A large  number  of  nymphs 
and  adults  of  each  species  were  sprayed  with  lime-sulfur  1-9  in 
the  laboratory  and  only  a few  were  killed,  A.  pomi  being  the  most 
susceptible.  This  also  agrees  with  Dr.  Ileadlee's  (9,  10)  experiment 
with  A.  sorM  in  1916,  where  nymphs  lived  and  apparently  did  not 
suffer  with  lime-sulfur  on  their  bodies.  Regardless  of  the  fact  that 
the  lime-sulfur  was  not  applied  before  the  eggs  of  A.  avenoi  started 
to  hatch,  an  interesting  series  of  observations  were  made  which 
show  conclusively  that  lime-sulfur  is  effective  in  killing  the  egg 
during  the  hatching  period.  Two  collections  were  made  from  the 
trees  in  the  block  east  of  the  house  before  the  siirav  was  put  on  and 

TABLE  7 

RETiATiON  Between  Percentage  op  Hatch,  Percentage  of  Normal 
Eggs  and  Percentage  of  Shriveled  Eggs  Among  Sprayed 
Eggs  and  Eggs  in  Check  in  Table  6 


Check  (3) 
Observed  Apr.  3 

Sprayed  Eggs  (1) 
Observed  Apr.  4 

Difference 

28.3%o  hatched 

23.2%  hatched 

— (a)  5.1%  difference  in  hatch 

33%,  normal 

36.3%o  normal 

— (b)  3.3%  difference  in  normal 

39%  shriveled 

40.5%,  shriveled 

— (c)  1.5%  difference  in  shriveled 

Eciuation:  (b)  3.3%  + (c)  1.5%,  = (b  + c)  4.8%,.  approximately  equals  (a)  5.1%C'. 


Check  (4)  ' 

Observed  Apr.  5 

Sprayed  Eggs  (1) 
Observed  Apr.  4 

Difference 

59%  hatched 

23.2%  hatched 

— (a)  35.8%  difference  in  hatch 

14%  normal 

36.3%  normal 

— (l3)  22.3%  difference  in  normal 

27%,  shriveled 

40.5%  shriveled 

— (c)  13.5%  difference  in  shriveled 

Equation  (bi  22.3%,  H 

h (c)  13.5%.  — (b  + c) 

35.8%o,  equals  (a)  35.8%. 

Note;  For  complete  i)iformation  read  discussion. 

the  percentage  of  hatch  in  these  checks  was  two  or  three  times  as 
great  as  in  the  sprayed  twigs  collected  after  the  lime-sulfur  was 
applied.  Table  6 shows  the  various  percentages  of  liatch  and  per- 
centages of  shriveled  and  normal  eggs  found  in  this  portion  of  the 
orchard. 

If  lime-sulfur  is  a good  control  measure,  then  at  any  period 
of  observation  the  percentages  of  hatch  on  the  spray  twigs  should 
not  show  a marked  increase  over  the  first  observation  of  April  4 
which  was  made  12  hours  after  the  spray  was  put  on.  The  first 
observation  on  sprayed  eggs  showed  a 23.2  per  cent  hatch,  and  a 
second  observation  on  April  11,  which  was  aliout  five  days  after 
all  normal  eggs  had  hatched,  showed  23.5  jier  cent  hatched,  giving 
a 0.3  per  cent  increase.  On  April  14,  another  collection  of  twigs 


34 


Bulletin  332 


was  made  and  out  of  564  eggs,  20.9  per  cent  had  hatched,  thus 
showing  conclusively  that  there  was  no  appreciable  increase  in 
hatch  after  the  lime-sulfur  was  applied.  Furthermore,  in  compar- 
ing the  percentage  of  hatch  among  the  sprayed  eggs  with  that  of 
eggs  receiving  no  treatment,  it  is  evident  that  the  following  inter- 
relationship between  the  percentages  should  hold.  If  the  lime- 
sulfur  acts  as  a control,  then  the  percentage  of  hatch  will  not 
increase  among  sprayed  eggs,  while  normal  untreated  eggs  will 
continue  to  hatch.  The  percentage  of  hatch,  then,  in  sprayed  eggs 
is  a constant  number.  If  such  is  the  case,  then  the  difference  (a) 
between  the  percentage  of  hatch  in  sprayed  eggs  and  the  percentage 
of  hatch  in  untreated  eggs  should  at  any  time  equal  the  difference 
(b)  between  the  percentage  of  norinal  eggs  among  the  sprayed  eggs 
and  the  percentage  of  normal  eggs  among  the  untreated  eggs  plus 
the  difference  (c)  between  the  percentage  of  shriveled  eggs  among 
the  sprayed  eggs  and  the  percentage  of  shriveled  eggs  among  the 

TABLE  8 

Results  of  Spraying  With  Lime-Sulfur,  and  Lime-Sulfur  Com- 
bined With  Nicotine  AViien  the  Nymphs  AA^ere  Emerging 
AT  John  11.  Barclay's  Orchard  in  1918 


1 

Date 

Observed 

Check 

Lime-sulfur  1-9 

Lime-sulfur  1-9 
“Black- Leaf  40”  1-500 

Hatched 
Eggs  and 
Total  Eggs 

Percent 

age 

Hatched 

Hatched 
Eggs  and 
Total  Eggs 

Percent- 

age 

Hatched 

Hatched 
Eggs  and 
Total  Eggs 

Percent- 

aae 

Hatched 

April  1 

55  h 

243 

22.0 

19  h 
191 

10.0 

27  h 

292 

9.2 

April  8 

77  h 

243 

35.8 

29  h 
191 

15.0 

29  h 

292 

9.6 

April  1 

150  aphides  to  100  buds 

5 aphides  to  100  buds 

0 aphides  to  100  buds 

April  5 

350  aphides  to  100  buds 

25  aphides  to  100  buds 

10  aphides  to  100  buds 

untreated  eggs.  Table  7 shows  this  comparison  for  the  observations 
made  on  April  3,  4 and  5 in  experiments  1,  3 and  4.  The  same 
relationship  will  hold  for  observations  made  on  April  11  and  14, 
but  these  have  not  been  included  in  this  discussion. 

The  figures  in  table  6 and  7 show  that  lime-sulfur  sprayed  on 
the  eggs  of  A.  avence  during  the  hatching  period  prevented  99  per 
cent  of  the  eggs  from  hatching  which  had  not  hatched  at  the  time  of 
application. 

Several  careful  examinations  were  made  throughout  the  or-  ^ 
chard  during  the  month  of  April  and  only  an  occasional  aphid 
could  be  found,  one  or  two  per  tree.  Nearby  orchards  along  with 
one  nnsp rayed  tree  in  Barclay’s  orchard  showed  a heavy  infesta- 
tion, approximately  five  aphides  to  a bud.  Examinations  made 
the  latter  part  of  Alay  and  in  June  showed  practically  no  A.  avenw 
on  trees  sprayed  with  lime-sulfur  or  combined  lime-sulfur  and 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


35 


nicotine,  but  some  of  the  trees  did  show  a few  clusters  of  curled 
leaves  due  to  A.  sorhi,  rosy  aphis.  A.  sorbi  is  somewhat  more  re- 
sistant than  A.  avence. 

During  1918  careful  observations  were  made  on  spraying 
operations  conducted  in  several  orchards  throughout  the  state.  At 
John  II.  Barclay’s  orchard  near  Cranbury  the  first  nymphs 
emerged  on  IMarch  21,  and  10  per  cent  of  the  eggs  had  hatched 
on  March  30  when  lime-suUur  1-9  was  sprayed  on  150  nine-year- 
old  apple  trees  (Duchess).  On  April  1 about  80  trees  of  the  same 
variety  were  sprayed  with  a combination  of  lime-sulfur  1-9  and 
nicotine  1-500.  A large  number  of  twigs  were  collected  from 
sprayed  and  unsprayed  trees  and  observed  on  April  1,  about  ten 
hours  after  the  combined  spray  was  applied.  Since  the  nymphs 
were  emerging  very  rapidly  on  April  1,  the  difference  between  the 
percentage  of  hatch  in  the  sprayed  and  unsprayed  twigs  observed 
on  April  1 can  be  in  part  accounted  for  in  the  delay  of  ten  hours 
before  the  observations  could  be  made.  Table  8 shows  the  effect 
of  the  sprays  on  the  eggs  and  nymphs  when  the  nymphs  were 
emerging. 

On  April  8 after  all  the  normal  eggs  had  hatched  it  was  noted 
that  the  number  of  hatched  eggs  on  the  unsprayed  branches  in- 
creased 13.5  per  cent,  while  the  percentage  of  hatch  among  eggs 
sprayed  with  lime-sulfur  1-9  showed  a 5 per  cent  increase  and  those 
sprayed  with  a combination  of  lime-sulfur  and  nicotine  did  not 
increase  more  than  0.5  per  cent.  This  experiment  shows  that  eggs 
are  killed  with  lime-sulfur  sprays  and  also  brings  out  the  increased 
effectiveness  of  a combination  spray  of  lime-sulfur  and  nicotine 
over  lime-sulfur  alone. 

Tlie  trees  were  also  examined  for  nymphs.  Check  trees  on 
April  5 showed  350  aphides  to  100  swollen  fruit  buds,  while  trees 
sprayed  with  lime-sulfur  alone  showed  25  aphides  to  100  buds  and 
the  combination  sprayed  showed  10  aphides  to  100  buds.  It  should 
also  be  observed  that  the  lime-sulfur  alone  did  not  kill  all  the 
nymphs  which  had  emerged  at  the  time  the  spray  was  applied, 
while  the  combined  lime-sulfur  and  nicotine  did  kill  all  the  nymphs. 
Again,  the  combined  spray  demonstrated  its  superiority  over  lime- 
sulfur  alone  as  a control  measure  for  nymphs. 

The  above  sprays  were  applied  by  means  of  one  ‘‘Hardie” 
gun  attached  tb  a sprayer  ^vith  225-pounds  pressure.  The  opera- 
tor stood  on  the  tank  and  sprayed  the  trees  on  each  side  of  the  row, 
thus  giving  each  tree  two  applications  from  opposite  directions. 
This  type  of  instrument  is  very  useful  and  well  adapted  to  dormant 
spraying  when  it  is  necessary  to  hit  all  parts  of  the  tree  with  con- 
siderable force. 

On  March  28  at  J.  L.  Lippineott  Company’s  orchard,  at  River- 
ton, N.  J.,  a combination  spray  of  lime-sulfur  1-9  and  nicotine 


36 


Bulletin  332 


1-500  was  sprayed  on  some  early  varieties  of  apple  trees  (Star,  etc.)- 
The  fruit  buds  on  these  trees  were  swollen  and  some  were  showing 
the  tip  ends  of  very  small  leaves.  Twigs  were  collected  and  exam- 
ined six  hours  after  the  spray  was  applied.  The  unsprayed  twigs 
showed  a 9.5  per  cent  hatch  of  all  the  eggs  while  the  sprayed 
branches  showed  6.3  per  cent  hatched.  Comparing  the  percentage 
of  hatch  of  these  eggs  with  those  collected  near  New  Bruns- 
wick, it  is  evident  that  the  majority  of  eggs  hatched  about  48  hours 
earlier.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  Riverton  is  approximately 
50  miles  south  of  New  Brunswick.  The  above  twigs  were  examined 
again  after  all  the  normal  eggs  had  hatched  (April  8)  and  the 
percentage  of  hatch  in  the  check  was  32  per  cent,  or  an  increase 
of  24.5  per  cent,  while  the  sprayed  eggs  showed  8.9  per  cent  hatched, 
or  an  increase  of  2.6  per  cent.  On  April  5 the  orchard  was  exam- 
ined for  nymphs  and  the  sprayed  trees  showed  17  nymphs  to  100 
fruit  buds,  while  the  buds  of  nearby  unsprayed  trees  were  in  many 
cases  completely  covered  with  aphides.  The  above  orchard  experi- 
ment again  shows  the  value  of  spraying  eggs  and  nymphs  at  the 
hatching  period  with  a combined  spi*ay  consisting  of  lime-sulfur  1-9 
and  nicotine  1-500.  The  proportion  of  eggs  which  hatched  after 
they  were  sprayed  in  this  orchard  was  about  2 per  cent  higher  than 
at  John  Barclay’s  orchard.  This  was  pro])ably  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  material  was  applied  by  using  long  rods  and  putting  the  ma- 
terial on  in  the  form  of  a mist.  Furthermore,  an  examination  of 
the  trees  after  the  spray  was  applied  showed  a less  thorough  job 
than  at  ]\Ir.  Barclay’s  orchard.  This  difference  is  possibly  due  to 
the  different  types  of  instruments  used  in  spraying  the  two  or- 
chards. Other  orchards  were  carefully  observed  during  the  delayed 
dormant  spray  period  and  in  all  cases  good  results  were  obtained 
when  the  material  was  applied  with  extreme  care. 

After  April  18  the  decided  value  of  applying  a delayed  dor- 
mant spray  of  lime-sulfur  and  nicotine  for  the  control  of  aphides 
was  not  as  conclusive  this  past  season  as  in  former  seasons,  because 
of  the  fact  that  a period  of  cold  stoiMiiy  weather  accompanied  by 
snow  and  sleet  in  most  ])arts  of  the  state  occurred  on  April  9 and 
10,  and  this  weather  killed  a lai*ge  ])(‘rcentage  of  the  newly-hatched 
nymphs.  In  fact,  some  unsprayed  orchaials  which  had  their  swollen 
fruit  buds  covered  with  aphides  on  Ai)ril  8 did  not  suffer  from 
aphis  attack  after  the  stormy  weather  was  past.  During  the  past 
s(‘ason,  a lai‘ge  number  of  adult  co(‘ein(*llid  b(M‘tles  and  larva*  of 
.syn)hid  flies  also  were  })resent  in  most  orchards. 

The  time  to  apply  the  dormant  spray  is  very  important.  As  a 
general  rule  apply  the  dormant  s])ray  as  late  as  possible,  for  at 
this  tiitie  the  greatest  number  of  (‘ggs  an*  sjilit  and  probably  some 
are  hatching,  especially  eggs  of  A.  avenw.  The  lime-sulfur  can  be 
ai)plied  with  safety  as  the  buds  are  swelling  (plate  2,  fig.  B)  and 


Sti’dies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Pi.ant  Lice 


‘M 


first  show  and  until  the  small  h'aves  project  like 

small  scpiirrcd  ears  (plate  2,  fi^.  C).  When  the  yonno-  leaves  have 
separated  somewhat  and  appear  as  distinct  strnetnres,  then  the 
dormant  strength  of  spray  will  l)nrn  them  (plate  2,  fig.  D).  The 
outline  drawings  of  the  twigs  show  the  various  stages  of  develoj)- 
ment  of  a fruit  si)ur  or  teniiinal  bud.  Stage  A is  a dormant  twig 
showing  eggs  of  A.  ponii  scattered  over  its  surface,  stage  B shows 
a slightly  swollen  terminal  bud  with  eggs  of  A.  avcnce  about  the 
dormant  buds  and  nymphs  of  A.  avence  near  the  green  exposed  tip. 
Stage  is  a more  advanced  stage  of  a swollen  terminal  bud  and 


Plate  2.  Fruit  buds  in  different  stages  of 
development. 


is  in  the  last  stage  Avhen  it  is  safe  to  apply  a dormant  lime-sulfur 
spray.  Nymphs  .and  eggs  of  A.  avencB  are  shown  on  this  twig. 
Stage  1)  shows  distinct  and  well  separated  leaves.  The  nymphs  of 
aphides,  if  presfuit  on  such  a twig,  would  be  found  to  a consider- 
able extent  in  between  the  leaves  in  protected  places  where  it  is 
next  to  impossible  to  hit  all  of  them  with  a contact  insecticide.  .Most 
v^arieties  of  apples  with  twigs  in  an  advanced  state  cannot  be 
sprayed  with  a dormant  strength  of  lime-sulfur  without  injuring 
the  young  leaves.  The  length  of  the  period  from  the  time  when 
the  buds  first  show  green  and  until  they  are  too  far  advanced  for 
dormant  spray  varies  with  the  growing  season.  It  may  be  less 


38 


Bulletin  332 


than  a week  or  more  than  ten  days.  In  using  a combination  spray 
it  would  be  better  to  apply  the  material  thoroughly  somewhat  early 
than  to  wait  too  long,  for  as  a rule  weather  conditions  are  very 
changeable  during  the  latter  part  of  March. 

Other  workers  have  had  some  experience  with  the  combination 
spray.  AVilson  (24)  in  1912  recommended  for  A.  pomi  and  A. 
sorhi:  Spray  in  the  spring  just  as  the  buds  are  opening  with 
lime-sulfur  plus  ‘Black-leaf  40’  or  ‘Black-leaf  40’  alone.  Spray 
thoroughly  applied  at  the  time  when  the  buds  are  opening  will 
prevent  95-100  per  cent  of  the  aphis  infestHtiou.  The  lime-sulfur 
should  be  used  winter-strength  and  the  ‘Black-leaf  40’  added  at  the 
rate  of  1 part  to  900  parts  of  diluted  lime-sulfur”.  Air.  AA^ilson 
does  not  indicate 'in  his  experiments  whether  the  eggs  have  all 
hatched  or  not.  In  either  case  the  combination  will  undoubtedly 
succeed,  but  nicotine  sulfate  alone  at  the  strength  of  1-900  would 
not  kill  many  of  the  eggs,  according  to  our  experience. 

During  the  spring  of  1916  a number  of  experiments  were  con- 
ducted in  various  orchards  in  the  state  of  New  York  by  P.  J. 
Parrott,  IT.  E.  Hodgkiss  and  P.  PI.  Lathrop  (18)  with  the  use  of 
lime-sulfur  1-8  plus  ^ pint  of  nicotine  solution  (40  per  cent)  to 
100  gallons  of  solution.  In  these  experiments,  “the  spraying  was 
purposely  delayed  until  the  eggs  had  begun  to  hatch  and  it  is 
reasonably  certain  that  most  of  the  nymplis  had  emerged.”  The 
results  obtained  in  the  various  orchards  were  altogether  satisfactory 
and  they  agree  in  large  measure  with  those  secured  by  various 
orchardists  throughout  New  Jersey.  The  principal  difference,  how- 
ever, is  the  fact  that  the  eggs  of  A.  sorhi  had  not  started  to  hatch 
when  the  material  was  applied  April  8,  1917,  at  Air.  Barclay’s 
orchard ; nevertheless  they  were  killed.  In  the  various  experiments 
conducted  in  New  York  it  is  possible  that  some  of  the  eggs  had  not 
hatched,  for  according  to  the  authors’  own  statement  they  were  only 
“reasonably  certain  that  most  of  the  nymphs  had  emerged.”  It 
may  be  possible  to  delay  the  “dormant  spray”  in  New  York  or- 
chards until  the  eggs  of  all  species  are  hatched,  but  this  is  not  the 
ease  in  New  Jersey,  for  the  eggs  of  A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi  in  two 
successive  seasons,  1916  and  1917,  did  not  hatch  to  any  extent 
until  the  leaf  buds  had  burst  and  the  small  leaves  were  well  sepa- 
rated. 

Dr.  T.  J.  Ileadlee  (9,  10)  in  1916  carried  on  an  extensive  series 
of  experiments  against  the  rosy  aphis  at  John  II.  Barclay’s  orchard 
and  a brief  summary  of  his  data  shows  that  the  rosy  aphis  can  best 
be  destroyed  by  making  a dormant  treatment  with  lime-sulfur  and 
following  that  with  a green-bud  treatment  of  “Black-leaf  40” 
(1-1000)  plus  soap  (2  pounds  to  50  gal.),  or  by  delaying  the  dor- 
mant treatment  of  lime-sulfur  until  the  buds  begin  to  show  green, 
and  then  api)lying  it  mixed  with  “Black-leaf  40”  (1-500).  These 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


39 


results,  so  far  as  similar  experiments  are  concerned,  agree  with 
those  obtained  by  the  author  during  1917  and  1918. 

Miscible  Oils 

A considerable  amount  of  investigation  has  been  conducted 
with  various  kinds  of  oils,  commercial  and  otherwise,  on  the  eggs 
of  apple  aphides.  A number  of  workers  have  experimented  with 
crude  oil  emulsions  and  miscible  oils.  The  most  recent  work  is  by 
P.  R.  Jones  (12),  who  in  a preliminary  report  treats  of  various 
contact  insecticides,  but  deals  particularly  with  different  oils  as 
miscible  oils,  distillate  oil  emulsion,  asphalt  emulsion,  crude  oil 
emulsion,  etc.  His  general  conclusion  in  respect  to  these  products 
is  that  oils  having  a specific  gravity,  14° -29°  Baume,  are  much  more 
effective  in  killing  the  eggs  of  aphides  than  ' high-gravity  oils, 
31°-41°  Baume.  His  recommendation  reads,  ‘‘As  far  as  can  be  de- 
termined at  present  under  western  conditions  it  is  believed  that 
dormant  treatment  for  eggs  of  the  apple  and  purple  aphides  should 
be  either  commercial  crude  oil  emulsion,  1-9  or  1-10  (where  the 
concentrate  contains  85  per  cent  crude  oil)  ; home-made  crude  oil 
emulsion,  19°-23°  Baume — and  the  application  made  as  late  in  the 
winter  as  possible  before  the  buds  start  to  show  green.”  He  ex- 
perimented with  various  miscible  oils,  some  made  from  low-gravity 
oils  and  others  from  high-gravity  oils,  and  so  far  as  can  be  learned 
from  his  report  the  above  conclusions  pertaining  to  specific  gravity 
of  oils  in  general  also  hold  for  miscible  oils.  His  results  will  be 
compared  with  those  observed  in  this  study. 

No  attempt  was  made  by  the  author  to  carry  on  an  extensive 
investigation  with  various  oils,  but  two  commercial  miscible  oils 
which  are  utilized  extensively  in  New  Jersey  and  other  eastern 
states  have  been  tried  in  a number  of  experiments,  and  their  results 
carefully  observed.  The  trade  names  for  these  oils  are  “Mechling’s 
Scale-Oil”,  manufactured  by  Mechling  Brothers  Manufacturing 
Company,  Camden,  N.  J.,  and  “Scalecide”,  manufactured  by 
B.  G.  Pratt  Company,  New  York  City.  Both  of  these  oils  are 
largely  made  from  oils  which  have  a comparatively  low  specific 
gravity;  the  specific  gravity  and  the  information  furnished  by  the 
two  concerns  confirms  this  statement.  The  specific  gravity  of 
“Mechling’s  Scale-Oil”  used  in  the  experiments  was  28°  Baume 
at  65°  F.,  and  of  “Scalecide”  25°  Baume  at  65°  F.  The  B.  G. 
Pratt  Company  reports,  “We  use  as  a petroleum  an  asphaltum 
base  oil  from  which  the  light  inflammable  and  heavy  lubricating 
oils  have  been  removed  and  which  has  an  oil  grav^ity  of  about 
26°-30°  Baume.”  The  .Mechling  Brothers  Manufacturing  Company 
reports,  ‘iMechling’s  Scale-Oil  is  composed  of  three  entirely  different 
oils,  a vegetable  oil,  a cresote  oil  and  a paraffine  oil.  the  largest 
part  being  the  latter,”  and  their  guaranteed  analysis  shows  85-88 
per  cent  mineral  oil.  The  specific  gravities  of  these  two  oils  are 


40 


l^UJ.LETIN  332 


about  the  same,  but  if  there  is  a differeiiee  “Mechliug’s  Scale-Oil” 
is  lighter  than  ‘ ‘ Scaleeide.  ’ ’ 

During  March  and  April,  1917,  a number  of  experiments  were 
conducted  with  the  above-mentioned  miscible  oils  on  the  eggs  of 
yl.  avemv  in  the  greenhouse  and  on  the  eggs  of  A.  avence,  A.  pomi 
and  A.  sorbi  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory.  Also  one  experiment 
was  conducted  with  “Scaleeide”  against  the  eggs  of  A.  aveme  (A. 
sorbi,  15  per  cent)  at  John  11.  Barclay's  orchard.  The  results  of 
tile  more  important  experiments  with  “iMechling’s  Scale-Oil  and 
“Scaleeide”  are  shown  in  table  4.  Experiments  G-27,  0-29  and 
0-31  where  “ .Mechling’s  Scale-Oil”  was  used  at  the  rate  of  1-19 
showed  a 6.3,  8.1  and  8.5  per  cent  hatch,  respectively,  while  ”Scale- 
cide”  1-15,  in  experiments  0-34,  0-36,  0-38  and  0-40,  showed  a 23.0, 
34.6,  22.8,  and  31.7  per  cent  hatch,  respectively.  In  other  words, 
three  to  four  times  as  many  eggs  hatched  when  treated  with  “Scale- 
side”  as  with  “Mechliugs’  Scale-Oil.” 

A comjiarison  of  the  results  olitained  in  the  use  of  the  two 
miscible  oils  shows  that  “Scaleeide”  1-15  is  not  as  etfective  in 
killing  eggs  as  “ iMechling ’s  Scale-Oil”  1-19,  and  that  neither  may 
be  depended  ui)oii  to  kill  all  the  eggs  or  act  as  a satisfactory  control 
when  applied  at  the  sti*engths  recommended  for  dormant  spray. 
Since  both  sprays  are  manufactured  from  low  gravity  oils  it  was  im- 
possible to  ex])laiu  the  decided  dilferemee  in  the  percentage  of  kill 
on  the  basis  of  the  specific  gravity  of  the  oil,  but  it  was  apparent 
that  some  chemical  might  be  ])resent  in  one  which  did  not  occur  in 
the  other.  In  conjunction  with  the  experiments  wdtli  miscible  oils, 
crude  carbolic  acid  was  used  alone  and  in  combination  with  the 
miscible  oils,  and  it  was  noted  that  the  eggs  of  all  three  species 
were  highly  susceptible  to  ci'esols  and  phenol;  consequently,  it  was 
thought  that  the  presence  of  these  chemicals  might  explain  the 
difference  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  two  oils.  In  the  first  place, 
it  was  noted  that  ”Mechling’s  Scale-Oil”  had  a distinct  phenol 
odor,  while  this  was  not  true  of  ” Scaleeide.”  The  two  oils  were 
subjected  to  two  (pialitative  tests  (Landolt’s  and  Lieberman’s) 
(14,  22)  foi*  cresols  and  ])henol.  ”i\Iechling’s  Scale-Oil”  gave  a 
decided  f(*st  for  cresols  and  ])henol  while  ” Scaleeide”  gave  no  in- 
dication. A short  time  aft(‘r  this  the  two  companies  kindly  sub- 
mitted an  analysis  of  their  respective  ]:)rodncts.  And  the  manufac- 
tures of  ” Scaleeide”  definitely  stated  that  their  })rodnct  contained 
no  carl)oli(‘,  a('id  while  i\re(*hling  Brothers’  Mannfa(4nring  (k)mpany 
gave  a guaranteed  analysis  of  4.5  to  6.5  jxn-  ('(uit  of  plnmol  deriva- 
tives for  ”M('(4ding’s  Scal(*-Oil”. 

The  ])r(‘senc(‘  of  tin*  ])hcnol  derivatives  in  ”Mechling’s  Scale- 
Oil”  and  tlu'ir  absence'  in  ” Scal('('id(‘ ” p}‘obal)ly  accounts  in  large 
measure'  foi’  the  eh'cieh'el  elifference'  in  the  effectiveiK'Ss  e)f  the  two 
nils.  In  all  the'  e'.xpe'i'ime'iits  0-28.  0-)10,  (J-35,  0-37  anel  0-39  (table 


TABLE  9 

Experiments  With  “Scalecide”  and  “Scalecide’’  Combined  With  Crude  Carbolic  Acid,  Phenol  c.  p.  and 

Cresol  u.  s.  p.  on  Selected  Eggs  op  A.  Avenae  (Out-of-doors,  1918) 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice  41 


March  23,  1918 
Barclay's 

Percent- 

age 

Hatched 

13.0 

0.0 

1.0 

4.4 

38.2 

O 

l>- 

1 

12.5 

32.6 

Hatched 
, and  Total 

Eggs 

-C 

id  LT 

0 h 

104 

1 h 

93 

4 b 

90 

39  h 

102  . 

1 ii 

99 

3 h 

110 

e*5  ■»*> 
rHO 

34  h 

104 

March  20,  1918 
Lippincott’s 

Percent- 

age 

Hatched 

1.8 

! 

0 ‘0 

1 

0.0 

o 

1 

00 

1 1 

1 

O 

o’ 

o 

o’ 

1 

9.0 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

O 

O 

O 

o 

8 h 

102 

o o 
cr. 

i_ 

ja 

^ o 

S3 

0.0 

o 

i 1 

' ^ ! 

! a:  1-H 

1 00  O 1 

I M 1 

March  14,  1918 
Barclay’s 

Percent-  i 

age 

Hatched 

If: 

- 

10.7 

o 

X) 

30.8 

3.0 

L 

o 

34.3 

Hatched  | 
and  Total 
Eggs 

03  --O 

C-O  CO 

--r  f— 1 

i 

t-oc 

OJ  00 

1 

7 b 

110 

35  h 

102 

C-  C'i 

Oi  r-i 

CM 

March  5,  1918 
Lippincott’s 

Percent- 

age 

Hatched 

1 

1 

o 

1 

1 

lO 

1 

O'O 

O 

10.0 

) 

cc 

cc 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

! 

! 

1 

-C 

O OC 

'r^  X 

5: 

i 

. 

rH  00 

-j; 

10  li 

101 

L 

Id  ir: 

cc 

i 

Feb.  19,  1918 
Barclay’s 

Per- 

centage 

Hatched 

24.6 

i :i 

CO 

25.4 

! ^ 

Ol 

1 

1 

18.5 

53.3 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

19  h 

77 

1 

17  h 

98 

tC'  (M 

^MO 

x: 

x: 

CO  CO 

c-l  5^3 

80  h 
150 

Feb.  1,  1918  ! 

Barclay’s 

Per- 

centage 

Hatched 

2.5 . 0 

1 

22.2 

3S.3 

o 

68.5 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

30  h 

1 120 

x: 

^ oc 

27  h 

81 

x: 

o « 

-C 

o 

cvi  f.; 

Date  sprayed  and 
source  of  eggs 

Spray 

“Scalecide” 

1-1.5 

“Scalecide” 

1-15, 

Crude  Carbolic 

1-99 

“Scalecide” 

1-15, 

Cresol 

1-99 

“Scalecide” 

1-15, 

Phenol 

1-99 

“Scalecide” 

1-40 

“Scalecide” 

1-40, 

Crude  Carbolic 

1-99 

“Scalecide” 

1-40, 

Cresol 

1-99 

“Scalecide” 

1-40, 

Phenol 

1-99 

Check  1 

ln(Iic;ates  hatched  egg:s 


42 


Bulletin  332 


4)  where  crude  carbolic  acid  was  added  at  the  rate  of  2 parts  to 
98  of  miscible  oil  spray  (making  a 2 per  cent  solution),  the  per- 
centage of  hatched  eggs  was  decreased  to  3.9  per  cent  or  a complete 
kill  where  ‘'Scalecide”  1-15  was  used,  and  all  eggs  were  killed 
when  the  acid  was  added  to  ‘'Mechling’s  Scale-Oil”.  These  re- 
sults show  that  miscible  oils  would  be  much  more  effective  in  killing 
aphid  eggs  if  crude  carbolic  acid  (principally  cresol)  derivatives 
were  present. 

Comparing  the  results  of  the  experiment  where  two  heavy 
miscible  oils  were  used  with  those  obtained  by  P.  R.  Jones  (12). 
there  is  some  disagreement.  ‘‘Scalecide”  is  unquestionably  a low 
gravity  oil  and  it  was  used  at  the  same  rate  as  Miscible  Oil  No.  1, 
which  gave  good  results  in  California.  This  apparent  inconsistency 
in  results  cminot  be  explained  on  the  basis  of  specific  gravity,  so  the 
question  is  raised  in  respect  to  the  presence  of  phenol  or  cresols  in 
Miscible  Oil  No.  1,  and  also  whether  these  active  antiseptic  agents 
were  present  in  the  various  oils  used  in  the  western  states  where 
good  results  were  obtained.  It  is  thought  that  the  presence  of 
these  chemicals  may  prove  to  be  far  more  important  than  the  mere 
specific  gravity  of  the  oil.  Possibly  one  can  add  crude  carbolic 
acid  to  oils  in  general  and  increase  their  insecticidal  value. 

In  1918  a number  of  experiments  were  conducted  during  Feb- 
ruary and  March  with  ‘^Scalecide”  at  varying  strengths  and  in 
combination  with  crude  carbolic  acid,  cresol  U.  S.  P.,  and  phenol 
c.  p.  on  the  eggs  of  A,  avence  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory.  The 
purpose  of  these  experiments  was  to  determine  what  material  in 
crude  carbolic  acid  is  the  most  effective  agent  in  killing  aphid  eggs 
and  how  much  acid  should  be^  added  to  a miscible  oil  in  order  that 
it  might  kill  100  per  cent  of  all  the  eggs  with  which  it  came  in 
contact.  ‘‘Scalecide”  was  chosen  as  a favorable  oil,  for  chemical 
tests  show  that  there  was  little  or  no  carbolic  acid  of  phenol  de- 
rivatives present  in  it.  Table  9 shows  in  condensed  form  the  re- 
sults of  these  experiments.  In  the  left-hand  column  the  treatments 
of  the  series  are  given,  and  at  the  top  the  date  of  the  spraying 
and  the  orchard  from  which  the  eggs  were  collected.  In  the  two 
spaces  for  each  experiment  there  are  shown  the  number  of  hatched 
eggs  (h),  the  total  number  of  eggs  used,  and  the  percentage  of 
hatch. 

The  results  of  the  experiments'  with  ‘"Scalecide”  show  con- 
siderable variation  in  the  respective  series,  more  so  than  in  any 
other  series  of  experiments  with  other  sprays.  These  somewhat 
inconsistent  results  are  not  understood ; however,  if  one  studies  the 
table  it  is  seen  that  the  eggs  are  most  susceptible  to  “Scalecide” 
(alone  or  in  combination  with  the  acids)  near  the  time  when  the 
nymph  emerges,  or  in  other  words,  when  the  greatest  number  of 
eggs  show  a split  outer  covering.  ‘‘Sealecide”  1-15  is  more  effective 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


43 


than  ‘"Scalecide”  1-40  but  when  crude  carbolic  acid  or  cresol  is 
combined  with  these  two  strengths  the  difference  between  the  re- 
sults is  not  as  marked.  Crude  carbolic  acid  (100  per  cent  acid), 
1 part  to  99  parts  of  spray,  combined  with  ‘"Scalecide”  1-15  makes 
the  most  effective  (100  per  cent)  kill  and  also  the  cheapest  killing 
agent  of  the  three  acid  combinations  tried  out.  Combinations  with 
cresol  U.  S.  P.  are  almost  as  effective  as  crude  carbolic  but  combina- 
tions with  phenol  c.  p.  are  the  least  effective  and  also  the  most 
expensive. 

TABLE  10 

Experiments  With  ‘'Scalecide”  Combined  With  Cresol  on 
Selected  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae  Collected  Prom  J.  L.  Lippincott 
AND  Company;  Out-op-Doors;  Sprayed  March  26,  1918 


Number  of 
Experi- 
ment 

Spray 

Total 

Eggs 

Total 

Hatch 

Percentage 

Hatched 

331 

Check 

i 106 

57 

53.7 

333 

“Scalecide”  1-15 

106 

9 

8.4 

333 

“Scalecide”  1-15,  plus  cresol  0.5% 

75 

9 

2.6 

334 

“Scalecide”  1-15,  plus  cresol  1% 

85 

0.  0 

335 

“Scalecide”  1-15,  plus  cresol  1.5% 

82 

0 1 

0.0 

336 

“Scalecide”  1-25 

112 

16 

14.2 

337 

“Scalecide”  1-25,  plus  cresol  0.5% 

83 

9 

2.4 

338 

“Scalecide”  1-25,  plus  cresol  1% 

91 

3 

3.3 

339 

“Scalecide”  1-25,  plus  cresol  1.5%  , 

90 

1 

1.1 

340 

“Scalecide”  1-40 

88 

7 

7.9 

341 

“Scalecide”  1-40,  plus  cresol  0.5% 

93 

2 

2.1 

342 

“Scalecide”  1-40,  plus  cresol  1% 

93 

1 

1.0 

343 

“Scalecide”  1-40,  plus  cresol  1.5% 

103 

0 

0.0 

*The  cresol  was  composed  of  one  part  meta-cresol,  one  part  ortho-ci-esol 
and  one  part  para-cresol. 


Another  set  of  experiments,  shown  in  table  10,  were  conducted 
on  March  26,  1918  with  ‘‘Scalecide”  1-15,  1-25  and  1-40  alone  and 
each  in  combination  with  0.5,  1.0  and  1.5  per  cent  cresol.  The 
cresol  mixture  was  made  up  of  one  part  meta  cresol,  one  part  ortho 
cresol  and  one  part  para  cresol.  These  experiments  show  again  a 
decided  increase  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  ‘ ‘ Scalecide  ’ ’ when  cresol 
is  added.  In  all  cases  the  1.5  per  cent  cresol  combinations  showed 
the  smallest  percentage  of  hatch,  in  two  experiments  a complete 
kill.  The  experiments  also  show  that  the  percentage  of  hatch  in 
the  various  strengths  of  ‘‘Scalecide”  (alone)  varies  more  than 
when  the  same  strength  of  ‘ ‘ Scalecide  ’ ’ has  a given  amount  of  cresol 
added  to  it.  In  other  words,  the  strength  of  the  oil  when  in  com- 
binations with  cresol  is  not  as  important  as  the  strength  of  the  cre- 
sol.  This  same  thing  holds  true  for  crude  carbolic  when  combined 
with  a miscible  oil. 

Comparing  these  foregoing  experiments  with  miscible  oils  and 
others  of  a similar  nature  conducted  this  past  season  with  those 
of  1917,  it  is  evident  that  a miscible  oil  spray  needs  to  possess  1.5 
to  2.0  per  cent  crude  carbolic  acid  or  cresol  as  it  goes  on  the  tree  in 


44 


Hulletin  :532 


order  to  kill  all  the  eggs  of  A.  avence.  Eggs  of  A.  pomi  and  A. 
sorhi  also  respond  in  a similar  manner  to  combinations  of  “Scale- 
cide”  and  crude  carbolic  acid;  however,  they  are  apparently  some- 
what more  resistant,  and  consequently  more  will  hatch. 

In  the  orchard  ‘‘Scalecide”  1-15  was  given  a trial  at  John  H. 
Barclay’s  place  in  1917  in  conjunction  with  a combined  spray  of 
lime-sulfur  1-9  and  ‘‘Black-leaf  40”  1-500.  During  the  morning 
of  April  7,  Mr.  Barclay  sprayed  100  large  apple  trees  with  “Scale- 
cide”  1-15.  The  buds  were  swollen  and  some  of  the  leaves  were 
out  about  34  inch.  These  trees  at  the  time  of  spraying  averaged 
five  nymphs  of  A.  avence  per  bud.  A careful  examination  was 
made  of  several  hundred  buds  at  5 o’clock  the  afternoon  of  the 
same  day,  and  at  this  time  the  nymphs  averaged  1 living  aphid  to 
25  buds;  in  other  words,  the  ‘‘Scalecide”  killed  99  per  cent  of  the 
nymphs.  These  trees  were  again  examined  on  April  14  when  the 
leaves  were  out  34  to  34  inch  long,  and  at  this  time  the  nymphs 
averaged  one  to  every  two  buds,  but  these  were  mostly  nymphs  of 
A.  sorhi.  Out-of-door  laboratory  experiments  conducted  during  this 
period  showed  that  all  eggs  of  A.  avence  had  hatched  by  April  6 or  7, 
and  the  eggs  of  A.  sorhi  commenced  to  hatch  about  April  12.  Accord- 
ing to  these  data  the  eggs  of  A.  sorhi  hatched  after  April  7,  and 
‘‘Scalecide”  did  not  prevent  all  the  eggs  of  this  species  from 
hatching.  In  fact,  the  infestation  was  severe  enough  to  demand 
the  use  of  ‘‘Black-leaf  40”  1-500  when  the  lime-sulfur  1-40  was 
applied  at  the  pink-bud  stage.  Even  though  this  measure  of  pre- 
caution was  taken  the  results  were  by  no  means  satisfactory. 

In  contrast  to  the  above  experiment,  lime-sulfur  1-9  plus 
'‘Black-leaf  40”  1-500  was  applied  to  about  one  hundred  infested 
trees  (5  nymphs  to  the  bud)  on  April  7,  and  an  examination  made 
in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  showed  that  so  many  of  the 
nymphs  had  been  killed  that  none  could  be  found.  A vast  ma- 
jority of  the  eggs  of  A.  sorhi  also  were  killed,  for  no  nymphs  could 
l)e  found  on  April  14;  however,  a very  few  did  survive,  for  in  the 
latter  part  of  May  and  in  June  an  occasional  tree  showed  a few 
clusters  of  leaves  infe.sted  with  A.  sorhi^  but  the  majority  of  the 
trees  were  entirely  clean.  The  trees  treated  with  “Scalecide”  on 
April  7 and  later  sprayed  with  lime-sulfur  1-40  plus  “Black-leaf 
40”  showed  during  i\Iay  and  June  a comparatively  heavy  infesta- 
tion. No  tree  was  completely  free  and  in  many  a considerable 
amount  of  fruit  was  damaged.  - One  tree  which  had  received  no 
dormant  treatment  or  nicotine  sulfate  served  as  a check,  and  this 
tree  was  severely  infested,  over  75  per  cent  of  the  leaves  being 
badly  curled  and  a large  percentage  of  the  fruit  ruined.  These 
experiments,  along  with  those  conducted  at  the  laboratory,  show 
the  superiority  of  lime-sulfur  1-8  or  1-9,  plus  “Black-leaf  40” 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  I^ice 


45 


1-500  over  “ ScaleeiOe”  1-15  for  the  control  of  aphids  in  the  nymph 
and  egg  stage.  They  also  bring  out  the  fact  that  a most  careful 
attempt  to  ‘‘clean  up”  aphis  by  adding  40  per  cent  nicotine  to 
summer  strength  lime-sulfur  at  the  cluster-cup  or  pink-bud  stage 
will  at  times  fail. 

A few  young  trees  not  over  six  years  old  were  sjirayed  with 
“Scalecide”  1-15  plus  crude  carbolic  acid,  1 part  to  99  of  the 
spray  (1  j)er  cent  solution),  on  .Alarch  18,  1918.  These  were  care- 
fully observed  at  the  time  the  leaves  came  out.  On  most  of  the 
branches  of  the  syirayed  trees  the  leaves  appeared  to  be  normal, 
l)ut  on  a few  of  the  lower  branches  the  buds  were  backward  in 
opening  and  some  seemed  to  be  dead.  Before  the  combination  of 
“Scalecide”  and  crude  carbolic  acid  can  be  recommended  as  a 
dormant  spray  for  killing  aphid  eggs,  it  will  be  necessary  to  give 
this  combination  a thorough  trial  and  note  its  effect  upon  various 
varieties  of  apple  trees. 

Soaps 

Common  laundry  soap,  commercially  called  “Fels  Naptha”, 
and  hsh-oil  soaps  (made  from  commercial  licpiid  and  solid  forms) 
were  used  chiefly  as  spreaders  in  a large  number  of  experiments 
with  nicotine,  crude  carl)olic  acid,  j)henol  c.  p.,  cresol  U.  S.  P., 
meta  cresol  c.  ]).,  ortho  crc'sol  c.  p.,  para  cresol  c.  p.,  etc.  In  all 
these  experiments  the  soap  was  always  given  a separate  trial  in 
order  to  determine’  its  inflnence  on  the  percentage  of  hatch.  Be- 
sides using  laundry  soap  as  a s})reader,  a lai'ge  number  of  exy)eri- 
ments  were  conducted  with  ditferent  concentrations  of  fish-oil  soap 
(made  fi’om  l)oth  solid  and  liijuid  forms)  and  resin  fish-oil  soap  on 
the  eggs  of  A.  aveiuv.  in  out-of-door  experiments  throughout  Febru- 
ary and  Alareli,  1918.  .In  the  majority  of  experiments  (tables  4 etc.) 
where  the  soa]is  were  used  at  the  rate  of  1 gm.  to  200  cc.  (1  pound  to 
24  gallons)  there  was  a slight  reduction  in  the  percentage  of  hatch. 
This  can  be  seen  by  comparing  the  percentage  of  hatch  among  the 
sprayed  eggs  with  the  respective  checks.  Even  though  this  reduc- 
tion was  small  it  demonstrates  the  fact  that  some  of  the  eggs  of  each 
species  are  much  less  resistant  than  others. 

A limited  number  of  experiments  were  conducted  in  1917  with 
fish-oil  soap  (exp.  0-61  to  0-68  and  0-64  to  0-67,  table  4)  and  the 
results  indicated  that  this  soap  was  very  effective  when  in  concen- 
trated form.  The  results  of  these  experiments,  however,  were  ques- 
tioned, for  unfortunately  they  were  dislodged  by  a heavy  wind  and 
covered  with  snow  for  two  days  before  the  accident  was  discovered. 
In  spite  of  this  unfortunate  occurrence,  these  experiments  and 
others  indicated  that  it  would  be  advisable  to  make  an  extensive 
study  of  the  effect  of  different  strengths  of  fish-oil  soap  on  the 


TABLE  11 

Experiments  With  Fish-Oil  Soap  Sprays  (Made  From  Solid  and  Liquid  Forms)  on  Selected  Egg5  of 

A.  Avenae;  Out-op- Doors,  1918 


46 


Bulletin^  332 


22,  1918 
clay’s 

Percent- 

aae 

Hatched 

CO 

C<I 

CO 

17.4 

22.5 

15.5 

CM 

32.7 

CO 

CM 

1 

24.  4 

irt) 

00 

s:  )- 

05 

Hatched 
and  T otal 
Eggs 

CO  o 
rH 

00  CO 
rH  O 

tH 

CO  CM 

CM  O 

^ O 

rH 

i 

7 h 

97 

X 

irt  t- 

co  o 

tH 

28  h 

101 

rH  b- 

CO  CM 

iH 

O 00 
Cl  o 
tH 

19,  1918 
icott’s 

Percent- 
1 age 
Hatched 

44.2 

! 

Z'l^ 

CO 

50 . 4 

1 

1 

! 

1 

1 

59.8 

46.1  1 

30.4 

1 

Hatched 
and  Total  ^ 
1 Eggs 

89  h 

201 

42  h 

82 

rH  00 

CO  l> 

53  h 

105 

! 

i 

1 

67  h 

112 

16 

1 

OC  Cl 

Cl  c; 

1 

■H  T3 

Cl 

cr:> 

1 

CO 

1 

j 

\ 

1 o 

1 

j 

^ </3 

r-  ^ 

Percet 

age 

Hatch( 

iO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

1 S 

1 

1 

1 

1 s 

1 

u m 

1 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

CM 

1 

O L- 

1 

CM 

1 

CO  o 

05  LO 

f-1  O 

IC  CM 

O 

CO  LC 

ir:  CM 

i i 

40  h 

105 

, T3 

^ 0) 

CO 

O 

OO 

CM 

. 1 

1 

00  « 

^ o 
o 

CO 

CO 

00 

CM 

\o 

CO 

lO 

CM 

S +i 

T-  O 

^ o 
Tl-  c 

(u  X 
Q. 

i 

i 

1 

i 

1 

1 

• a 

s-J 

Hatched 
and  T otal 
Eggs 

45  h 

135 

d 

a> 

C<i  00 

i 

47  h 

131 

! -1 

-ci  ; 

t>-  b- 

CM  O 1 

rH 

i 

! 

• ! 

i 

i 

1 

1 

■ 

! 

, T3 
^ 0) 

C 1)  ^ 

CO 

<£> 

00 

00 

t> 

CO 

00 

w 

O) 

T-  >. 

05  7^ 

s.  ^ 

CO 

00 

CO 

o 



00 

C-l 

rH 

i 

Feb.  1 
Bare 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

80  h 

150 

14  h 

106 

54  h 

111 

31  h 

89 

b-  rH 

O 

1 

.c 

<M  05 

j 

59  h 

115 

i 

Date  Sprayed  and 
Source  of  Eggs 

Spray 

Check 

Fish-Oil  Soap 
(solid) 

1 gm.-200  cc. 

Fish-Oil  Soap 
(solid) 

1 gm.-lOO  cc.  ' 

Fish-Oil  Soap 
(solid) 

1 gm.-50  cc. 

Fish-Oil  Soap 
(solid) 

1 gm.-25  cc. 

Fish-Oil  Soap 
(liquid) 

1 cc-200  cc.  1 

Fish-Oil  Soap 

(liquid)  1 

1 cc-50  cc.  j 

Fish-Oil  Soap 
(liquid) 

1 cc-25  cc. 

Fish-Oil  Soap 

(liquid)  ! 

1 cc-10  cc.  1 

h-— indicates  hatched  eggs. 


TABLE  12 

Experiments  With  Resin  Fish-Oil  Soap  on  Selected  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae,  Out-of-Doors,  1918 


47 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


22,  1918 
■clay’s 

Percent- 

age 

Hatched 

39.3 

43.3 

1 

: 23.0 

14.8 

CM 

o ™ 

Hatched 
and  T otal 
Eggs 

tH 

u 

1 CM  O 

CM 

j 23  h 

100 

19  h 

128 

1 

34  h 

104 

14,  1918  ; 

;lay’s 

Percent- 

Hatched 

age 

48.3 

60.2 

O 

t- 

■■ 

31.4 

o ro 

Hatched 
and  Total 
Eggs 

! 

t-  CO 

iC3  r-i 

1 

rC 

CO 

no  C: 

x: 

CO  LO 

Ol  cc 

17  h 

54 

1 

T-1 

Ol 

1 

00 

T-  03 
03 

^ O 

Percent- 

Hatched 

age 

39.5 

c>^ 

47.7 

33.3 

it 

Hatched 
! and  Total 

Eggs 

38  h 

94 

-C 

CO  o 

CO 

I ■ 

I 

Tf'  c^l  ! 

ur. 

CO 

3,  1918 
lay’s 

Percent- 

age 

Hatched 

50.0 

48.3 

43 . 5 1 

L 

CO 

CO 

ut) 

Feb.  1! 
Bare 

Hatched  I 
Eggs 

, and  Total 

801 

^ ts 

68 

1 ^ 2f 

1 41  h 

94 

sa 

o o 

00  Id 

1,  1918  • 

:lay’s 

Percent-  I 
age  ! 
Hatched 

28.0 

o 

CO 

52.2 

33.3 

1 

o 

Id 

Feb.  1 
Bare 

Hatched 
and  Total 
, Eggs 

J 

S3 

LO  lO> 

CM  00 

1 

J 

C<l  CM 

CO  00 

1 

.d 

LO  t- 

CO 

! 

1 

S3 

IC  Id 
CM 

00  CO 

Date  sprayed  and  I 

Source  of  Eggs 

Spray 

Resin  fish-oil 
soap 

1 g-m.-200  cc. 

Resin  fish-oil 
soap 

1 gm.-lOO  cc. 

Resin  fish-oil 
soap 

1 grm.-50  cc. 

Resin  fish-oil 
soap 

1 gm.-25  cc 

Check 

48 


Bulletin  332 


eggs  of  apple  aphides,  consequently  a large  number  of  experiments 
were  conducted  with  varying  concentrations  of  fish-oil  soap  sprays 
(made  from  solid  and  liquid  soaps)  and  resin  fish-oil  soap  on  the 
eggs  of  A.  avence  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  during  February 
and  ^larch,  1918.  The  results  of  these  experiments  are  given  in  the 
usual  manner  in  tables  11  and  12. 

These  experiments  recorded  in  table  11  and  others  of  a similar 
nature  show  that  fish-oil  soap  sprays  made  from  eitlier  the  solid 
or  liquid  form  are  quite  effective  in  killing  aphid  eggs.  Similar 
concentrations  of  laundry  soap  are  not  as  effective  as  the  fish-oil 
soaps.  Comparing  the  effectiveness  of  the  same  concentration  of 
fish-oil  soap  sprays  made  from  solid  and  liquid  fish-oil  soap,  the 
percentage  of  hatch  was  much  less  where  the  fish-oil  soap  spray 
was  made  from  solid  fish-oil  soap.^ 

Resin  fish-oil  soap  (table  12)  was  also  given  a thorough  trial 
in  a set  of  experiments  similar  to  the  above,  and  the  results  of  the 
experiments  show  that  resin  fish-oil  soap  is  not  as  effective  in  killing 
eggs  as  the  same  concentration  (by  weight)  of  fish-oil  soap  sprays 
made  from  solid  fish-oil  soap.  The  lowest  percentage  of  hatch 
with  resin  fish-oil  soap,  1 gm.  to  25  cc.,  applied  on  March  22,  was 
14.8  per  cent,  while  a similar  concentration  of  fish-oil  soap  made 
from  solid  soa])  reduced  the  percentage  of  hatch  to  7.2  per  cent 
when  applied  on  the  same  day. 

All  the  series  of  experiments  (soap  of  same  concentration) 
with  the  various  soaps  sliow  the  greatest  percentage  of  kill  or  the 
smallest  percentage  of  hatcli  when  the  spray  was  applied  near  the 
time  when  the  nymph  emerges.  In  other  words,  the  exposed  pig- 
mented layer  of  the  eggs  is  more  pervious  to  soap  solutions  than 
the  outer  tough  layer.  This  observation  again  substantiates  a 
former  statement  made  in  discussing  contact  insecticides;  when  the 
greatest  number  of  eggs  show  a split-out  shell,  then  the  greatest 
numlier  of  eggs  will  be  most  susceptible  to  various  contact  insecti- 
cides. The  greatest  number  of  eggs  with  a split  outer  covering 
occurs  at  the  time  when  the  first  nymphs  emerge. 

Nicotine 

A number  of  experiments  have  been  conducted  with  nicotine 
as  found  in  the  commercial  products  called  “Black-leaf  40”  and 
“Nic()tine  resinate”  (40  per  cent  nicotine  in  each).  These  are 
manufactured  by  the  Kentucky  Tobacco  Products  Company,  Louis- 
ville, Ky.  In  1917  the  “Black-leaf  40”  was  applied  on  the  eggs 
of  A.  (ivcmv  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  on  April  3 (exp.  0-41 

2The  solid  and  liquid  fish-oil  soaps  were  purchased  from  Capstone 
Manufacturing  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  and  the  resin  fish-oil  soap  from 
James  Good,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


TABLE  13 

Experiments  With  Nicotine,  ‘'Black-Leaf  10”,  Coaibined  With  Fisii-Oil  Soap  (solid)  and  Nicotine  Resinate  on 

Selected  Eggs  op  A.  Avenae;  Out-of-Doors,  1918 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


49 


A "o 

' 

“ ! 

0.0 

0.0 

cc 

t.  re 

Cl 

CO  1 

(u  re 

>> 

a.  I 

22, 

da 

. 

05 

dm 

re 

« ™ w 

_ ! 

1 

- 

- 

_ 

foa, 

H h D) 

-H 

0 i- 

0 Cl 

ic  0 

t-  <10 

0 

-t  -H 

■M  0 

C'J 

1—1  '<• 

CO  0 

i E 

i 

1 

1 

re 

1 

1 

• T3 

1 

1 

! 

4J  0) 

C 0)^ 

CO 

CO 

Cl 

<u  O)  o 

'>} 

i.O 

-r 

Cl  1 

Cl 

T-  W 

O 05+^ 

rH 

rH 

T 

D.  1 

1 

i 

05  o , 

E ^ 

1 

1 

■O  05 

d 

m 

- 1 

re. 9- 

1°  C5) 

-* 

! 

IS-J 

“P  U) 
re-oUJ 

14 

91 

'-t  c^} 

X 

1 a:.  rH 

1 00  0 

1 

i 

I E 

! 

re 

n 

C rt,  <u 

C-. 

dC 

CO 

3C 

CC 

0 

00 

o ii  u 

l.  ^ -M 

jj' 

?! 

U: 

Cl  ' 

‘■i 

<u  re 

a.  I 

, 

■5? « 

; ^ m 

« « 

(Z 

.E  0 cn 

0 l_  05 

1 

LO  I.O 

-M  ^ 

0 Cl 

cc  Cl 

l-  Cl 

UJ 

il? 

0 

^ ' 

tH 

r-1  cc 

r-1 

1 ^ 

rH 

re 

i 

1 

1 T3 

1 

1 

1 

1 <U 

1 C ...E 

1918 

cott’s 

Perce 

agt 

Hate 

‘A 

- 

*■ 

X 

?? 

1 __  E 

a ' 

't  — 

! . a 

1 *0  (Z 

! ro-J 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 ^ 

“H  5 

jO  X 

96 

cr.  ^ 

?o.  0 

! ro-oUJ 

I c 

rr 

1 

1 05 

1 

1 

1 ■ 

i 

1 

"O 

! 

1 

i 

1 

1 

^ OJE 

1- 

i 

i 

1 

1 

i 

00 

GG  i 

! 00 

no 

GO 

00 

i 00 

01 

00 

X 

0 —E 

i 

-t- 

1 • 

Cl 

^ re 

11  I 

L.. 

i 

! 

1 

1 

2 o ( 

1 

1 

• re 

1 "Ore 

.Qm 

(U 

(U-fS  w 

! E 0 05 

'=^ 

- 

" 

1 oj-  05 
! « 

' reT3 

0 CO 

'tC  Ct* 

0 0 

Ll 

T-n  0 

10  0 

■H*  ^ 

CO  0 

GO  lO  1 

rH 

T- 

T— 

I E 

1 

1 re 

i 

o'  V 
i 0 0 

0 ^ 

00, 

cc. 

0 8 

1 

8 

10  0 

LTt  0 

1 0 

^ \ 

i "o 

E 

re  M 

-r, 

« O’ 

1 

Spray 

T-1  OJ 

0 Sc 

ri  S 

af  40”  1 

(.s>  1 gno.-l 

fl 

b ^ 

: Sc 

0 

CC 

resinate 

1000  cc. 

resinate 

500  cc. 

resinate 

250  cc. 

: a° 

(/)  (U 

' 

^ ft 
0 

T & 
1:  § 

0 

^ X 

0. 

T efi 

X 

3 t 

<v  -J 
.2 

ine  1 

cc.- 

1 o 

1 ^ 

0 

0 ''' 

0)  t. 

d ■ 

cC  X 

0 ^ 

0 

0 

3 

1 i:  0 

z:  C 

i:  ^ 

rr  0 

0 

0 

0. 

o 

1 ^ ■ 

93  ^ 

C . - 

W 

I Q</) 

1 

1 : 

: 

: ^ 

Z 

Z 

>3 

a 

h — indicates  hatched  eggs;  s — indicates  solid  Itsh-oil  soap. 


50 


Bulletin  332 


to  0-44,  table  4)  at  the  rate  of  1-100,  1-250  and  1-500,  and  laundry" 
soap  (1  gm.  to  200  cc.)  was  used  as  a spreader.  The  percentages 
of  hatch  in  the  check  and  in  the  experiment  where  the  laundry  soap 
was  tried  alone  were  approximately  the  same,  40  per  cent  and  39.2 
per  cent,  respectively;  consequently  the  soap  must  have  had  very 
little  effect  on  the  percentage  of  hatch  when  combined  with  the 
nicotine.  The  percentage  of  hatched  eggs  was  reduced  in  all  the 
experiments  with  the  nicotine.  Where  the  nicotine  was  used  at 
the  rate  of  1-500  the  percentage  of  hatch  was  22.4  per  cent,  or 
17.6  per  cent  lower  than  in  the  check.  The  greater  strengths  of 
nicotine  showed  a still  greater  reduction.  According  to  the  above 
experiment  with  ‘‘Black-leaf  40”  1-500,  when  combined  with 
enough  laundry  soap  to  act  as  a spreader,  the  reduction  in  the 
number  of  hatched  eggs  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant  the  use  of  the 
same  as  a control  measure.  Greater  strengths  than  1-500  are  pro- 
hibitive on  account  of  the  cost. 

During  the  dormant  season  of  1917-18  a number  of  experiments 
were  conducted  with  “Black-leaf  40”  combined  with  lime-sulfur 
1-9,  fish-oil  soap  and  resin  fish-oil  soap.  In  all  but  one  or  two  of 
these  experiments  the  combined  spray  was  considerably  more  ef- 
fective than  the  lime-sulfur,  hsh-oil  soap,  or  resin  fish-oil  soap  alone. 
This  was  particularly  true  when  the  combined  spray  was  applied 
near  the  time  wlien  the  nymph  emerges,  or  in  other  words,  when 
the  greatest  number  of  eggs  show  a split  outer  shell.  The  superi- 
ority of  a combined  nicotine  and  lime-sulfur  spray  over  lime-sulfur 
alone  has  been  considered  under  the  discussion  on  lime-sulfur. 

The  experiments  with  the  combinations  of  “Black-leaf  40”, 
and  fish-oil  soap  sprays  made  from  solid  soap  show  the  greatest 
percentage  of  kill,  100  per  cent,  where  the  “Black-leaf  40”  1-500 
was  combined  with  fish-oil  soap,  1 gm.  to  50  cc.  (=  1 pound  to  6 
gallons),  or  1 gm.  to  25  cc.  (=  1 pound  to  3 gallons),  and  sprayed 
on  the  eggs  of  A.  avencp  as  they  started  to  emerge,  March  22. 
Fish-oil  soap  alone  at  the  same  respective  strengths  and  applied 
on  tlie  saine  day  killed  only  85  and  92  per  cent  of  the  eggs.  A 
comparison  of  the  results  in  the  two  tables  (11  and  13)  shows  the 
relative  superiority  of  a combined  spray  of  nicotine  and  fish-oil 
soap  over  fish-oil  soap  alone. 

A number  of  experiments  were  conducted  also  with  nicotine  com- 
bined with  fish-oil  soap  sprays  made  from  liquid  fish-oil  soap,  and 
with  similar  concentrations  (by  weight)  the  percentage  of  kill  was 
not  as  great  as  with  fish-oil  soap  made  from  solid  soap.  This ’is 
undoubtedly  due  to  the  fact  that  commercial  liquid  hsh-oil  soap 
possesses  a considerable  portion  of  water  (60-70  per  cent)  ; conse- 
quently, there  is  not  as  much  soap  present  when  diluted  to  the 
desired  strength. 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


51 


A few  experiments  were  conducted  with  combinations  of  nico- 
tine and  resin  fish-oil  soap,  and  these  indicate  that  resin  fish-oil 
soap  is  not  as  effective  in  combination  with  nicotine  as  fish-oil  soap 
made  from  solid  soap. 

Nicotine  resinate,  containing  40  per  cent  nicotine,  was  also 
given  a thorough  trial  during  February  and  March,  1918,  on  the 
eggs  of  A.  avenoi  out-of-doors  at  the  laboratory  (table  13).  This 
material  behaves  like  a soap  solution  and  has  good  spreading  and 
lasting  qualities.  Nicotine  resinate  is  more  effective  in  killing  aphid 
eggs  than  “Black-leaf  40”  combined  with  weak  solutions  of  laundry 
soap.  Nicotine  resinate  at  the  rate  of  1-500  killed  88.4  per  cent 
when  the  material  was  applied  on  iMarch  22,  while  the  same  amount 
of  nicotine  in  “Black-leaf  40”  combined  with  fish-oil  soap  (solid 
form),  1 gm.  to  50  cc.  killed  100  per  cent  (0.0  per  cent  hatched). 

All  the  experiments  where  nicotine  is  used  show  that  some 
eggs  are  killed  with  nicotine  and  where  nicotine  is  combined  with 
lime-sulfur,  fish-oil  soaps,  resin  fish-oil  soap  and  resin  (nicotine 
resinate)  the  percentage  of  kill  is  increased,  and  in  a few  experi- 
ments no  eggs  survived.  The  experiments  also  show  that  the  great- 
est number  of  eggs  of  A.  avence  are  most  susceptible  to  nicotine 
during  the  latter  part  of  March,  or  in  other  words,  when  the  largest 
number  of  eggs  show  a split  outer  covering.  This  brings  out  the 
significant  relationship  between  the  time  of  application  of  the  spray, 
the  behavior  and  structure  of  the  outer  semi-transparent  layer  of  the 
egg,  and  the  suscejitibility  of  the  eggs  to  certain  contact  insecticides. 

Crude  Carbolic  Acid,  Phenol  and  Cresols 

During  the  past  two  seasons  a large  number  of  experiments 
were  conducted  with  eggs  on  twigs  in  the  greenhouse,  out-of-doors 
at  the  laboratory  and  on  young  apple  trees  in  the  orchard  with 
crude  carbolic  acid,  phenol  c.  p.  cresol  U.  S.  P.,  meta  cresol  c.  p., 
ortho  cresol  c.  p.,  and  para  cresol  c.  p.  The  eggs  of  all  three  species 
of  aphides  were  experimented  with  in  1917,  but  only  those  of 
A.  avence  were  obtainable  during  the  past  dormant  season  (1917-18  ). 
The  results  of  the  following  experiments  recorded  in  the  various 
tables  show  that  crude  carbolic  acid  gives  some  promise  of  becoming 
c\n  important  snbstance  for  the  control  of  aphides  in  the  egg  stage, 
provided  it  is  applied  when  the  tree  is  dormant. 

During  March  and  April,  1917,  crude  carbolic  acid  only  was 
used  and  not  any  of  the  pure  cresols  or  phenol.  The  crude  acid 
had  a dark  brown  color  and  was  approximately  100  per  cent  acid 
(no  water).  It  was  purchased  from  Eimer  and  Amend,  New  York 
City,  at  60  cents  per  gallon  (ante  bellum  price).  According  to 
Merck  and  Company,  IManufacturing  Chemists,  lids  crude  carliolic 


TABLE  14 

Experlmkxts  With  (hiUDE  (Lvrbolic  Acid,  Cresol  U.  S.  l\,  Biienol  e.  p.,  Meta  Cresol  c.  p.,  Ortjio  (Jresul  e.  p.,  and 
Bara  Bresoe  t'.  p.,  ox  Selected  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae;  Laundry  Soap  Used  as  a Spreader;  Out-of-Duors,  1918 


Bulletin  332 


25,  1918 
clay's 

Percer 

age 

Hatch' 

S.  ' 

■Drew 

re  CD 

(U  +J  O) 

2 

^ ° D) 

ohuj 

m'o 

AS 

i CO 


r- 

C 0)  f 

0)  Olii 

re 

1)  X 

Q. 


"Dree/) 

re-D 
I c 


o 

ii  a 
re  Q. 


E D-C 
OJ  O)  <-> 

o re  "tj 


■D™  (0 
o 

“1—0) 

re-D 

Ire 


a)  r; 


I Q- 


. re 
n CQ 


"o  re  w 

(U+J  o) 

•c  O D1 

fCTJ 

I E 


■ -a 

- w 1 u re 

«r>  X i <u  ™ 

; : 0-  I 

' in  o ' 

I C\J  s_  1 — 

I re  T3 

t o OQ  I <i>  o <« 

(U  ^ Y C5) 

n oP  o) 

ro'OUJ 

1 Ire 


X O'.  OC  CO 


■D  >, 

c re 

i o 

>,UJ 

ao 

t/)  (U 

Qw 


72.- - I 

. ^ 


5^  F 
::2  - br- 


72  c 


Studies  on  K(}gs  of  Addle  Plant  Lice 


53 


('oiisistecl  chietiy  of  tlie  tlireo  isomeric  cresols  and  possil)ly  some 
xylenol  and  bigln'r  liomolo^nes.  The  crude  foiau  used  in  the  fol- 
lowing- experiments  may  liav(‘  also  contained  some  i)henol.  No 
(piantitative  tests  were  made  of  this  acid,  hnt  the  extensive  ex- 
periments conducted  with  pure  phenols  and  with  all  three  isomeric 
(-resols  during  11)1  S sliow  tln^  relativi'  value  of  each  constituent  of 
('rude  carholic  acid  in  res[)ect  to  killing  aphid  eggs.  The  crude 
(-ai-holic  acid  at  varying  strengtlis,  0.5,  1.  2,  5 and  10  per  cent,  was 
used  in  experiments  (L4()  to  (L51  and  0-52  to  ()-58  (table  4)  and  in 
all  ('ases  a small  (piantity  of  soap  was  used  as  a spreader.  These 
(‘xperimeiits  show  an  im-rceise  in  tln^  ('tl'ectivi'ness  of  the  spray  as  the 
stiaeigths  of  tlu^  ai'id  was  incirased.  Strengths  l(>ss  than  2 pei-  (-ent 
acid  did  not  kill  a snfhc'ic'iit  nnmhei-  of  ('ggs  to  1)(‘  considered  effec- 
tive, whih‘  sti-engths  greaten*  than  2 i)er  e(Mit  acid  kilh'd  all  eggs, 
and  a 2 pee*  cent  a(‘id  spi*ay  killed  Oh  to  100  p(‘r  e(‘nt.  Some  expei'i- 
ments  where  a small  amount  of  tish-oil  soaj)  was  used  as  a spreader 
also  were  tried  with  varying  strengths  of  crude  carliolic  acid,  and 
tli('  resnlts  obtained  were  similar  to  the  foregoing  experiments. 

In  combining  ciTide  carbolic  acid  with  soa])  solutions,  it  was 
noted  that  the  crude  acid  mixes  more  readily  with  a fish-oil  soap 
solution  than  with  a laundry  soap  (“Pels  Naptlia”)  solution,  and 
also  when  thoroughly  mixed  with  a fish-oil  soap  solution  it  will 
remain  constant  throughout  for  a considerable  period.  Tn  pre])aring 
mixtures  of  crude  car])olic  acid  and  soap  solutions  it  was  advan- 
tageous to  mix  the  acid  thoroughly  with  two  or  three  times  its 
volume  of  soapy  water,  and  then  make  the  desired  dilution.  Fish- 
oil  soap  is  also  superior  to  laundry  soaj)  in  that  it  has  greater 
insecticidal  properties. 

The  results  of  the  experiments  for  1917  indicated  that  it  would 
be  worth  while  to  make  a sindlar  but  more  extensive  study  of  the 
various  isomeric  cresols  and  phenol  which  go  to  make  crude 
carbolic  acid  and  note  the  effect  of  each  on  the  eggs  of  aphides. 
This  was  undertaken  during  the  past  season,  with  crude  carbolic 
acid,  cresols  and  phenol  at  varying  strengths  and  in  combinations 
with  different  strengths  of  fish-oil  soap,  such  as  solid  fish-oil  soap, 
liquid  fish-oil  soap  and  resin  fish-oil  soap. 

In  the  first  place,  a number  of  experiments  were  conducted 
from  December  15  to  ]\larch  25,  1918,  with  a 1 per  cent  solution 
(1  part  to  99  of  soapy  water!  of  crude  carbolic  acid,  phenol  c.  ])., 
cresol  U.  S.  P.,  meta  cresol  c.  p.,  ortho  cresol  c.  p.,  and  para  cresol 
c.  p. ; laundry  soap  (“Fels  Naptha”)  being  used  at  the  rate  of 
1 gm.  to  200  cc.  The  purpose  of  these  experiments  was  to  de- 
termine the  relative  killing  effect  of  the  various  acids  on  the  eggs 
of  A.  avence.  The  experiments  show  that  the  soap  solution  alone 
had  little  oi’  no  effect  upon  eggs,  for  the  percentage  of  hatch  in  the 


TABLE  15 

Experiments  With  Crude  Carbolic  Acid,  Cresol  U.  S.  15,  and  Phenol  e.  p.,  Combined  With 
Different  Strengths  of  Fish-Oil  Soap  (solid  soap)  on  Selected  Eggs  of  A.  Avenae; 

Out-of-Doors,  1918 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  \pple  Plant  Lice 


lO 

CO 

^ i 

c 

- 1 

t- 

to 

= j 

CO 

CO 

lO 

c^? 

rc  1 

c 

I 

O 

c: 

1C  1 

0 

c 

1 

- 

1 

i 

Cl  1 

i 

tH 

1 

^ o 

1 

1 

O 00 

^ «AC 

i 

Ol  Ol 

a 

00  Cl 

i 

rH 

01  to 

1-1  CTj 

CO  • 

1-H  c;' 

Cl  ,-1 

rH  0 

1 

i 

1 

i 

o 

a; 

o 

VO 

o 

i 

Ct  1 

-H* 

iO 

-r 

CO 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

d 1 

t- 

CO 

' 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

CO  1 

01 

tH 

Ol 

i 

, ^ 

-a 

CO  o 

O AT 

CO  »0 

LO  O 

LO  l.O 

1-  CO 

LO  i-i 

^ •r 

00  CO 

CO  0 

T-i  O 

oi  o 

CO  Ol 

Ol  o 

CO  rH 

01  00 

rH  0 

CO 

1 

i 

rH 

1 

. ! 

lO 

o 

oo 

■' 

Ol 

OC 

1 

.c 

rH 

d 

r- 

n' 

t- 

1 

1 

! 1 

i 

Cl 

1 

j 

j 

[ 

t- 

IC  CO 

o o 

l-  00 

Ol  wH 

OI  o 

0-1  1— 1 

Cl  c; 

CO  Ci 

1-^’  0 

rH 

1 

i 

oc 

o 

<01 

Ol 

O 

1' 

o 

01 

to 

CO 

00 

oc 

c;- 

rH 

c: 

00 

CO 

to 

Ol 

CO 

01 

1 

Ol 

! 

Ol 

Ol 

CO 

1 : 

X 

L 

( 

1 

- 

T-  T-H 

rH 

lO  o 

00  S: 

Ol 

tH  00 

00  o 

LC  cc 

0 

Cl  So 

CO  CO 

(to  C-1 

T-i  0-1 

lO  Ol 

CO 

Ol  o 

Cl  0 

CO  tH 

rH  Cl 

1 " 

1 ^ 

T— ! 

tH 

o 

cCO 

is 

o . 

O 1 

-o 

‘"S 

tH  1 

o m 

tH  O 

liO  <3, 

^*0 
ic  m 

0 

\a> 

.0 

^ rH 
tH 

a 

ao 

w o 

w o 

1? 

iH 

o g 

.Ha 

11 

•.§  & 
o 

X!  o 
t-m 

1 

r T-i 

a 

M c 
^xn 

, S.  P., 
Soap  1- 

a 

. d 

-arH 

ra 

ad 

0 

.m 

U5  rH 

1 — 1 

a 

.*  d 
ao 
m 

^ fi 
bn 

03 

ua: 

o3 

ua 

d 

0.a: 

P.a: 

!^.a! 

0 

6^ 

6 ^ 

29 

9 

o9 

0)9 

<3.9 

o9 

-09 

■09 

•39 

o'o 

•SO 

%% 

m 

g§ 

'2  a! 

g.2 

a5  A 

g “ 

W£! 

g 2 

g.2 

W rj 

i Ouiiiu 

'.u 

XJ^x, 

Old 

CL[d 

Sid 

Scd 

55 


h — indicates  hatched  eggs. 

*In  these  experiments  the  crude  carbolic  acid,  cresol  or  phenol  was  2.5  per  cent  by  mistake. 


I^ULLETIN  332 


')(] 

various  clierks  e()rresi)ouds  with  the  percentage  of  hatch  where  the 
laundry  soap  was  used  at  the  rate  of  1 gni.  to  200  cc. 

The  results  of  the  experiuients  with  a 1 per  cent  solution  of  the 
various  acids  are  not  very  conclusive,  and  they  are  also  somewhat 
inconsistent.  This  is  probably  dne  to  the  fact  that  a 1 per  cent 
solntion  is  not  strong  enough  to  produce  an  appreciable  amount  of 
actual  kill,  especially  when  applied  early  in  the  season.  A 2 per 
cent  solution  probably  would  have  given  better  results,  at  least  the 
experiments  ('onducted  in  1017  indicate  as  much.  Even  though  the 
1 j)er  cent  solution  did  not  ])roduce  a great  amount  of  kill,  neverthe- 
h'ss  the  smallest  percentage  of  hatched  eggs  occurred  when  the  spray 
was  applied  in  the  latter  part  of  iMarch  near  the  time  when  the 
nym})hs  enierg(o 

In  order  to  determine  the  etfectiveness  of  the  varying  strengths 
of  crude  carbolic  acid,  cresol  U.  S.  P.,  and  phenol  C.  P.  with  fish- 
oil  soa]),  a large  number  of  experiments  were  conducted  out-of-doors 
at  the  laboratory  throughout  the  month  of  iMarch,  1918.  The  acids 
were  used  in  three  different  strengths  0.5,  I,  and  1.5  per  cent,  and 
the  fish-oil  soa])  solutions  (made  from  solid  soap)  in  two  strengths: 
1 gm.  to  100  cc.  (=  1 pound  to  12  gallons)  and  1 gm.  to  50  cc. 
(==  1 pound  to  6 gallons).  All  ])ossible  combinations  were  made 
between  the  three  strengths  of  each  acid  and  the  two  strengths  of 
the  tish-oil  soa]).  Table  15  shows  in  condensed  form,  similar  to 
foregoing  tables,  the  treatment  given,  time  of  application,  source  of 
the  eggs,  number  of  hatched  eggs  (h),  total  number  of  eggs  and  the 
])ercentage  of  hatch. 

A general  survey  of  the  results  of  the  experiments  in  table  15 
again  ])rings  out  the  ])oint  that  a contact  insecticide  applied  late 
in  Mareli  just  before  the  nym])hs  emerge  will  kill  the  greatest 
number  of  eggs.  In  tlie  four  trials  with  each  strength  of  acid  on 
iMarcli  1,  5,  14  and  23  the  smallest  percentage  of  hatch  occurred 
where  the  applications  were  made  on  iMarch  14  and  23,  and  in  most 
cases  when  applied  on  March  23.  These  results  indicate  that  the 
acid  can  more  readily  })enetrate  to  the  embryo  through  the  pig- 
mented layer  alone  (after  the  outer  shell  splits)  than  through 
both  layers  when  the  outer  covering  is  whole.  The  greatest  number 
of  eggs  showed  a si)lit  outer  covering  on  iMarch  23. 

A comparison  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  three  acids  at  similar 
strengths  shows  that  crude  carbolic  acid  killed  the  largest  per- 
centage and  plienol  the  least  while  cresol  U.  S.  P.  was  almost  as 
effective  in  some  experiments  as  crude  carbolic  acid.  A comparison 
of  all  the  experiments,  wliere  the  acids  eom]U)sed  1.5  i)er  cent  of 
the  spray,  brings  out  the  resj)(‘etiv(‘  etfectiveness  of  the  three  acids. 
Why  1h«‘  ('iMuh'  earbolie  acid  shouhl  b('  the  most  effective  is  un- 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


57 


known.  The  greatest  strength,  1.5  per  cent,  of  the  three  was  the 
most  effective.  Furthermore,  whenever  the  same  strength  of  one 
acid  was  used  witli  the  two  different  strengtlis  of  fish-oil  soap  the 
greatest  percentage  of  kill  took  place  when  the  stronger  tish-oil  soap, 
1 gm.  to  50  cc.,  was  used. 

If  all  the  above  facts  are  consistent  throughout  then  the  one 
experiment  where  crude  carbolic  acid  composed  1.5  per  cent  of  the 
spray  combined  with  a fish-oil  soap  solution,  1 gm.  to  50  cc.,  and 
applied  on  ]\Iarch  23,  should  show  the  smallest  percentage  of  hatch. 
This  is  the  actual  case,  for  the  experiment,  which  fulfills  the  above 
requirements,  is  the  only  one  in  the  entire  lot  which  shows  no  hatch, 
or  100  per  cent  kill.  All  other  experiments  showed  some  hatch.  If 
the  above  requirements  were  fulfilled  in  orchard  spraying  it  would 
be  possible  to  control  the  aphis  with  this  spray.  These  experiments 
and  others  not  shown  in  this  paper  indicate  that  a 2 per  cent 
solution  of  crude  carbolic  acid  combined  with  a strong  fish-oil  soap 
solution  would  come  nearer  to  controlling  aphides  in  the  stage  than 
a 1 or  1.5  per  cent  acid  solution. 

A somewhat  similar  series  of  experiments  (not  shown  in  the 
table  form)  were  conducted  with  crude  carbolic  acid,  cresol  U.  S.  P., 
and  phenol  c.  p.,  combined  with  fish-oil  soap  solution  which  had  been 
made  from  liquid  fish-oil  soap.  In  these  experiments  the  effective- 
ness of  the  combination  between  the  acid  and  the  fish-oil  soap  was 
decreased  as  the  strength  of  the  fish-oil  soap  was  increased.  This 
apparent  inconsistency  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  liquid 
tish-oil  soap  is  strongly  basic,  and  this  basic  condition  of  the  soap 
neutralized  the  acid  as  its  strength  was  increased. 

Similar  combinations  between  the  three  acids  and  resin  fish-oil 
soap  were  tried,  but  these  were  not  extensive  enough  to  warrant  a 
conclusive  statement  concerning  their  effectiveness.  A comparison 
of  these  results  with  combinations  of  the  acids  and  fish-oil  soap 
solutions  made  from  solid  fish-oil  soap  showed  that  the  effectiveness 
of  the  combinations  between  the  acids  and  the  resin  fish-oil  soap 
was  somewhat  h‘ss  tlian  when  tlie  acids  were  combined  with  fish-oil 
soap  solutions  made  from  solid  soap. 

The  effect  of  crude  carbolic  acid  on  various  fruit  trees  during 
the  dormant  season  has  never  been  determined,  so  far  as  is  known ; 
consequently  it  was  necessary  to  conduct  some  preliminary  experi- 
ments along  this  line.  Six  apple  trees  were  experimented  on,  one 
old  tree  and  five  6-year-old  trees.  On  April  2,  1917,  two  of  the 
6-year-old  trees  and  a portion  of  the  mature  tree  were  sprayed  with 
a 2 per  cent  solution  of  crude  carbolic  acid  plus  laundry  soap  at 
the  rate  of  1 pound  to  24  gallons  of  water.  During  the  same  day 
two  6-year-old  trees  were  sprayed  with  a 5 per  cent  solution  of 
crude  carbolic  acid  with  laundry  soap  as  a spreader.  One  6-year- 


58 


Bulletin  332 


old  tree  and  the  unsprayed  portion  of  the  old  tree  served  as  checks. 
Frequent  observations  were  made  of  these  trees  during  the  period 
between  the  bursting  of  the  leaf  and  the  fruit  buds  and  to  full 
blossom  and,  so  far  as  could  be  observed,  no  injury  was  found  on 
any  of  the  trees.  Similar  experiments  were  conducted  on  March 
18,  1918,  with  fish-oil  soap,  1 pound  to  6 gallons  of  water,  plus 
cresol  U.  S.  P.  2 per  cent  (2  parts  to  98  of  solution),  and  again 
no  injury  could  be  detected.  On  the  basis  of  the  above  experi- 
ments, apparently  one  can  safely  apply  on  dormant  trees  a spray 
composed  of  2 per  cent  crude  carbolic  acid  plus  fish-oil  soap. 

V^ARious  Chemicals 

Sodium  sulfo-carbonate  having  a specific  gravity  of  35°  Baume 
was  tried  in  one  set  of  experiments  (G-3,  G-76  and  G-77,  table  4). 
The  effect  of  this  material  on  the  eggs  is  similar  to  that  of  dormant 
strength  lime-sulfur.  The  proportion  of  hatched  eggs  was  15.3 
per  cent  with  a 1-19  dilution,  and  2.6  per  cent  with  a 1-9  dilution, 
while  tlie  check  showed  62.8  per  cent  hatched.  These  results  are 
similar  to  those  obtained  when  lime-sulfur  was  used,  and  it  is 
possible  that  sodium  sulfo-carbonate  as  a spray  might  be  used  witli 
as  much  success  as  lime-sulfur. 

fSodium  chloride  (common  salt)  was  experimented  with  at  the 
rate  of  1 gm.  to  5 cc.  of  water  on  the  eggs  of  A.  avenw  in  the  green- 
house (exp.  G-4  and  G-75,  table  4)  and  out-of-doors  (exp.  0-6  and 
0-74,  table  4)  and  the  proportion  of  hatched  eggs  was  somewhat 
lower  among  the  sprayed  eggs  than  in  the  respective  checks.  This 
shows  that  sodium  chloride  may  prevent  the  less  resistant  eggs  from 
hatching.  Common  salt  in  combination  with  lime-sulfur  apparently 
does  not  materially  increase  or  decrease  the  effectiveness  of  the 
lime-sulfur  spray,  according  to  the  results  in  experiments  G-17, 
0-20  and  0-21  (table  4). 

Sodium  hydroxide  at  the  rate  of  2 gm.  to  98  cc.  of  water  has 
a decided  intluenee  on  the  percentage  of  hatch  of  the  eggs  of 
A.  (ivenm  in  the  greenhouse  and  out-of-doors.  In  experiments  0-72 
and  0-73'  (tal)le  4)  the  proportion  of  hatched  eggs  was  reduced  to 
9.6  i)er  cent  and  1.8  per  cent,  respectively.  A 2 per  cent  solution 
has  a decided  caustic  ('ffect  whicli  is  particularly  noticeable  if  the 
material  is  allowed  to  remain  on  tlie  bare  skin  of  one’s  hand.  No 
experiments  wei*e  conducted  with  this  material  on  trees  during  the 
dormant  season;  consequently,  its  effect  is  unknown. 

Pyridine  (10  cc.)  combined  with  xylene  (10  cc.)  and  resin 
(enough  to  make  25  cc.  of  solution)  is  a very  effective  mosquito 
larvicide,  so  this  mixture  was  given  a trial.  In  experiment  0-78 
(table  4)  where  the  above  mixture  was  used  at  the  rate  of  2 parts 
to  98  of  water  plus  enough  soap  to  make  the  spray  spread  well, 


Studies  on  Eggs  op  Apple  Plant  Lice 


59 


there  was  little  or  no  reduction  in  the  percentage  of  hatch.  This 
solution  was  also  mixed  with  lime-sulfur  (G-IG,  table  4)  with  no 
apparent  change  in  tlui  results.  It  was  also  combined  with  crude 
carbolic  acid  (exp.  0-79,  table  4)  at  the  rate  of  1 xiart  of  each  to 
100  cc.  of  soax^y  water,  and  the  percentage  of  hatch  was  reduced  to 
13.3  x>er  cent.  This  decided  decrease  was  umpiestionably  due  to  the 
crude  carbolic  acid.  The  pyridine  mixture  is  highly  volatile  and 
this  may  account  for  its  ineffectiveness. 

Summary 

In  the  summary  only  the  new  and  important  features  of  this 
investigation  will  be  considered. 

A morphological  study  of  tlie  eggs  of  three  ax^ple  x>lant  lice 
A.  avenai,  A.  pomi  and  A.  sorhi  shows  two  distinct  layers  in  the  egg 
shell,  an  outer  semi-transparent  layer  which  is  soft  and  glutinous 
when  the  egg  is  deposited,  but  hardens  and  becomes  somewhat  tough 
(may  be  brittle)  and  impervious  upon  long  exposure  to  weather, 
and  an  inner  soft,  elastic,  membraneous,  black  layer.  A third  layer 
thin  and  membraneous,  may  be  seen  about  the  nymph  when  it  starts 
to  emerge.  This  skin  is  probably  the  first  exuviuui,  since  it  is  shed 
by  the  nymph  as  it  emerges. 

Under  out-of-door  conditions  the  outer  layer  of  the  egg  usually 
splits  along  the  dorso-mesal  line  a number  of  days  (2  to  30  or  more 
for  A.  avenw)  before  the  nymph  emerges.  So  far  as  observed  under 
greenhouse  conditions  the  eggs  of  all  three  species  split  their  outer 
covering  at  least  a few  hours  before  the  pigmented  layer  is  severed. 
In  1918  the  first  eggs  of  A.  avemv  with  split  outer  coverings  were 
seen  on  February  15,  and  wlien  the  first  nymphs  emerged,  on  March 
21,  approximately  95  per  cent  of  the  normal  live  eggs  (45-50  per 
cent  of  the  eggs  were  dead)  had  split  their  outer  semi-  transparent 
covering. 

Tliese  observations  on  the  morphology  and  behavior  of  the  egg 
coverings  show  conclusively  that  the  egg  is  not  a hard  resistant 
body,  and  that  it  goes  through  a critical  change  previous  to  the 
emergence  of  the  nymph.  It  is  in  the  midst  of  this  critical  period 
that  the  egg  is  most  susceptible  to  evaporating  factors  and  certain 
contact  insecticides. 

The  outer  semi-transparent  layer  of  the  egg  is  somewliat  im- 
pervious to  water ; conserpiently,  the  water  content  of  the  embryo 
does  not  undergo  very  much  evaporation  in  moist  weather,  or  in 
other  words,  when  low  evaporating  factors  exist,  such  as  high 
humidity,  low  temperature,  and  prol)ably  small  wind  velicity.  The 
outer  layer,  however,  is  not  entirely  impervious,  for  extreme  drought 


60 


Bulletin  332 


will  cause  the  vast  majority  of  the  eggs  to  shrivel  and  never  hatch. 
In  other  words,  low  humidity,  high  temperature  and  probably  air 
velocity  undoubtedly  bring  about  a greater  evaporation  of  the 
water  content  of  tlie  enduwo,  and  thus  destroy  the  living  form. 

The  inner  pigmented  (black)  layer  of  the  egg  is  not  an 
efficient  protector  against  evaporation.  Numerous  and  varied  ex- 
periments at  the  laboratory  and  observations  made  on  the  per- 
centage of  hatched  eggs  of  A.  avence  during  the  past  two  totally 
different  seasons,  1917  and  1918,  show  conclusively  the  pervious 
nature  of  this  layer. 

The  eggs  are  most  susceptible  to  evaporating  factors  and  con- 
tact insecticides  during  the  latter  part  of  iMarch,  or  in  other  words, 
when  the  greatest  number  show  a split  outer  layer,  and  this  occurs 
when  the  first  nymphs  start  to  emerge  (hg.  7 and  10). 

Experiments  conducted  in  the  laboratory  under  controlled 
percentages  of  moisture  and  also  experiments  where  similar  eggs 
of  A.  avoKv  were  kept  out-of-doors  during  the  critical  period 
(February  15  to  iMarch  31,  and  especially  important  iMarch  15  to 
iMarch  31)  in  1917  which  was  wet,  while  in  1918  this  period  Avas 
dry,  show  (piite  conclusively  that  the  percentage  of  hatched  eggs 
is  much  higher  in  a low  evaporating  environment  than  in  a high 
e V a p 0 r a t i n g 111 e d i u ni . 

Contact  insecticides  jirobalily  prevent  the  egg  from  hatching 
in  several  ways.  From  a physical  viewpoint  some  substances  tend 
to  harden  the  outer  semi-transparent  shell  (lime-sulfur),  and  this 
makes  it  impossible  for  the  nymphs  to  split  the  hardened  layer. 
This  hardening  effect  may  be  due  to  dessication.  . Dessicating  sub- 
stances may  also  remove  the  water  content  of  the  embryo  within, 
especially  if  applied  after  the  outer  layer  has  split.  Other  sub- 
stances soften  and  disintegrate  the  outer  impervious  layer  (crude 
{'arbolic  acid  and  cresols)  and  thus  expose  the  inner  pigmented 
layer  to  evaiiorating  factors.  3die  above  physical  reaction  of  con- 
tact insecticides  on  eggs  of  aphides  may  be  important,  but  it  is 
j)robabl(‘  that  th(‘  toxic*  effect  upon  the  embryo  of  various  contact 
insecticides  is  more*  important.  So  far,  no  technic  has  been  found 
which  will  determine  the  penetrative  ability  of  the  various  chemicals 
used. 

Control  Measures 

In  conclusion  to  the  foregoing  experiments  and  observations 
we  can  safely  recommend  as  a control  measure  for  aphids  a delayed 
dormant  spray  of  lime-sulfur,  1-8  or  1-9,  combined  with  nicotine 
(“Black-leaf  40”),  1-500.  The  combined  spray  kills  98-100  per 
(‘(•nt  of  all  the  eggs  that  are  (*oated  and  will  also  kill  all  the  newly- 
hatch(*d  nyitii)hs,  j)rovid(‘d  they  are  hit  with  the  spray.  Dormant 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice 


(il 


lime-sulfur  1-9  by  itself  will  kill  a large  percentage  (90  per  cent 
or  better)  of  the  eggs,  but  not  enough  to  rely  upon  it  alone. 
Furthermore,  lime-sulfur  alone  will  kill  only  a small  percentage  of 
the  newly-hatched  nymphs  if  they  have  made  their  appearance. 
Therefore,  a combined  spray  is  better,  for  it  will  kill  a greater 
percentage  of  eggs  and  all  the  nymphs. 

The  time  of  application  is  important.  In  the  foregoing  dis- 
cussion on  the  behavior  of  the  outer  layer  of  the  egg  it  was  shown 
that  the  egg  is  most  easily  killed  when  the  outer  shell  has  si)lit 
(plate  1,  tig.  2-5)  and  the  greatest  num])er  of  eggs  show  a split 
ont(U'  shell  when  the  nymphs  are  emerging.  With  these  facts 
in  mind  one  can  get  the  best  results  by  dela^dng  the  dormant  si)ray 
until  the  fruit  ])uds  start  to  swell  and  when  they  first  show  green. 
At  this  stage  the  eggs  of  the  oat  apliis  A.  avence  will  be  hatching 
while  the  eggs  of  the  rosy  aphis,  A.  sorbi,  and  the  green  apple  aphis, 
A.  pomi,  will  not  hatch  for  7 to  14  days  later.  The  dormant  spray 
will  not  injure  swollen  fruit  buds  (jilate  2,  hg.  B)  or  those  showing 
short  jirojecting  tips  of  leaves  (i)late  2,  hg.  C),  while  a dormant 
spray  applied  when  the  leaves  are  distinct  and  separated  (plate  2, 
hg.  D)  will  burn  the  foliage  of  most  varieties.  Also,  the  recently- 
emerged  nym])hs  of  the  aphides  will  coiu'eal  themselves  to  a large 
extent  between  the  se])arated  leaves,  and  it  will  be  im})ossible  to 
liit  all  of  them  with  a contact  spray. 

A miscible  oil,  “Scalecide”  1-5,  has  l)een  given  a thorough  trial 
in  the  orchard  and  at  the  laboratory,  but  it  has  not  produced 
satisfactory  results.  Some  ('ggs  are  killed  by  ^LScalecide”  and 
other  miscible  oils,  but  we  have  not  used  any  which  give  as  good 
control  as  a combined  lime-sulfur  and  nicotine  spray.  iMiscible  oils 
containing  derivatives  of  carbolic  acid  give  more  perfect  control 
than  those  which  do  not  possess  the  same;  however,  there  is  some 
indication  that  an  amount  of  acid  (2  per  cent  of  the  spray)  suf- 
ficient to  kill  all  the  eggs  may  be  detrimental  to  dormant  buds. 

Other  contact  sprays,  such  as  a strong  solution  of  fish-oil  soap, 
combined  with  nicotine  1-500  or  crude  carbolic  acid  1.5  to  2 per  cent, 
give  considerable  promise  of  becoming  effective  sprays  for  the 
control  of  aphides  in  the  egg  stage  when  applied  near  the  time 
wlu'ii  the  uymjdis  (Miiergi'.  These'  studies  are  as  yet  in  the  experi- 
mental stage,  C()nse(|ueutly,  we  eaniiot  recommend  the  treatments 
for  orchard  spraying.  Any  soap  spray  spreads  bettei-  than  lime- 
sulfur,  and  for  this  reason  they  may  prove  to  be  more  efficient. 
Crude  carbolic  acid  or  cresol  T^.  S.  P.  combined  with  fish-oil  soap 
will  not  injure  dormant  buds,  so  far  as  observed. 

Acknowledgement  : The  author  wishes  to  express  his  thanks 
to  Dr.  T.  J.  Headlee  for  the  sincere  interest  shown  and  the  many 
valuable  suggestions  received.  He  is  also  indebted  to  Dr.  W.  A. 


62 


Bulletin  332 


Riley  for  information  on  the  identification  of  the  various  layers 
about  the  egg,  to  Mr.  J.  J.  Davis  for  help  in  identifying  specimens, 
to  Mrs.  John  B.  Smith  for  the  privilege  of  experimenting  upon  a 
few  young  apple  trees  and  to  various  fruit  growers  throughout  the 
state  for  their  cooperation  in  spraying. 

References 

(1)  Aldrich,  J.  M.  1904.  Winter  spraying  for  apple  aphis. 
Idaho  Agr.  Ep.  Sta.  Bui.  40. 

. (2)  Baker,  A.  C.,  and  Turner,  AV.  F.  1916.  Morphology  aiul 
biology  of  the  green  apple  aphis.  In  dour.  Agr.  Res.,  v.  5, 
p.  956-990. 

(3)  Baker,  A.  C.,  and  Turner,  AV.  F.  1916.  Rosy  apple  aphis. 
In  Jour.  Agr.  Res.,  v.  7,  p.  321-343. 

(4)  Davidson,  AA^.  AI.  1914.  AValnut  aphides  in  California.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.  Bui.  100. 

(5)  Folsom,  J.  AV.  1909.  Entomology  with  Reference  to  its  Bio- 
logical and  Economic  Aspects.  ]).  129-130.  P.  Blakistons’ 
Son  and  Co.,  Phila.,  Pa. 

(6)  Gillette,  C.  P.  1910.  Some  insecticide  tests  for  Ihe  destruc- 

tion of  Apliididce  and  their  eggs.  In  Jour.  Econ.  Ent., 
V.  3,  p.  207-210.  • 

(7)  Gillette,  C.  P.,  and  Tayhn*.  E.  P.  1908.  A few  orchard 
plant  lice.  Col.  Agr.  Ex]).  Sta.  Bui.  133. 

(8)  Gillette,  C.  P.,  and  Taylor,  E.  P.  1908.  Orchard  plant  lice 
and  their  remedies.  Col.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  134. 

(9)  Ileadlee,  T.  J.  1916.  Apple  plant  lice.  In  N.  J.  Agr.  Exp. 
Sta.  38th  Ann.  Rpt.,  p.  494-501. 

(10)  Headlee,  T.  J.  1918.  Some  Important  orchard  plant  lice. 
N.  J.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  328. 

(11)  llenneipiy,  L.  Felix.  1904.  Les  Insectes,  Morphologic-  Re- 
production-Embryogenie,  Paris,  Alasson  et  Cie,  Editeuro. 

(12)  Jones,  P.  R.  1915.  Preliminary  report  on  spraying  eggs  for 
the  control  of  the  purple  and  green  apple  aphides  of  Cali- 
fornia. In  Cal.  State  Com.  Ilort.  AIo.  Bui.,  v.  4,  no.  1, 
p.  20-30. 

(13)  Korschelt.  1C.  and  lleiihn*.  K.  1899.  Text  Book  of  Em- 
l)i*yology-Invertebrates,  v.  (Translation).  33ie  Alacmillan 
Company,  N(‘w  A^ork. 

(14)  Lnnge,  G.  1911.  Technical  AFethods  of  Chemical  Analysis 
(Ti'anslation)  by  C.  A.  Keane.  Tests  for  phenol,  v.  2,  p.  821. 
A^an  Nostrand  Co.,  New  York  City. 

(15)  Less,  A.  II.  1916.  AVinter  Cover-washes.  In  Ann.  Appl. 

Biol.,  V.  2,  p.  245-250. 


Studies  on  Eggs  of  Apple  Plant  Lice  63 

(16)  Packard,  A.  S.  1901).  A text-book  of  Eiiloinology.  The  Mac- 
iiiillaii  Co.  New  York  City. 

(17)  Parrot,  P.  J.,  and  Hodgkiss,  11.  E.  1915.  The  status  of 
spraying  practices  for  the  control  of  plant  lice  in  apple 
orchards.  N.  Y.  (State)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  402. 

(18)  Parrott,  P.  J.,  Hodgkiss,  IT.  E.,  and  Lathrop,  E.  H.  1917. 
Plant  lice  injurious  to  apple  orchards.  II.  Studies  on  con- 
trol of  newly-hatched  aphides.  N.  Y.  (State)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 
Bui.  431. 

(19)  Peterson,  Alvah.  1917.  Studies  on  tla^  niori)hology  and 
susceptibility  of  the  (‘ggs  of  Aphia  (ivoia,  Fab.,  Aphis  pomi, 
l)e  Geer,  and  Aphis  sorhi.  Kalt.  /a  Jour.  Econ.  Ent.,  v.  10, 
p.  556-560. 

(20)  Regan,  W.  S.  1918.  Late  dormant  versus  delayed  dormant 
or  green  tip  treatment  for  the  ('ontrol  of  apple  aphids.  In 
Mass.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui,  184. 

(21)  Kumsey,  W.  E.,  and  Peairs,  L.  1912.  Apple  aphis  con- 
trol. /a  W.  Va.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  1911-12,  p.  19-24. 

(22)  Smulyan,  51.  T.  1917.  Key  and  descriptions  for  the  separa- 
tion and  determination  of  the  first  instar  stem  mother  of 
the  three  species  of  ajihides  most  commonly  attacking  th<“ 
cultivated  apples.  In  Psyche,  v.  25,  p.  19-23. 

(23)  Weiss,  J.  51.,  and  Downe,  C.  H.  1917.  The  deterniination 
of  phenol  in  crude  carbolic  acid  and  tar  oils.  In  Jour. 
Indus.  Engin.  Chem.,  v.  9,  p.  569-580. 

(24)  Wilson,  W.  F.  1912.  Plant  lice  attacking  orchard  and  bush 
fruits  in  Oregon.  In  Ore.  Agr.  (N)l.  Bien.  Crop  Pest  and 
Hort.  Rpt.,  1911-12,  p.  81-97. 


n,  L 

hU  2 ^ 

ANALY^S  OF  MATERIALS  SOLD  AS  INSECTICIDES 
AND  FUNGICIDES  DURING  1918 


NEW  JEH8EY 
AGRICULTURAL 


Bulletin  333 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSey  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS* 

NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J. 


STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 
BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 


His  Excejjlency  WALTER  E.  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S,  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 


County 
Atlantic 
Bergen 
Burlington 
Camden 
Cape  May 
Cumberland 
ICssex 
Gloucester 
Hudson 
Hunterdon 
Mercer 


Name 

William  A,  Blair 
Arthur  Lozier 
R.  R.  Lippincott 
Ephraim  T.  Gill 
Charles  Vanaman 
Charles  F.  Seabrook 
Zenos  G.  Crane 
Wilbur  Beckett 
Diedrich  Bahrenlmrg 
Egbert  T.  Bush 
Josiali  T.  Allinson 


Address 
Elwood 
Ridgewood 
Vincentown 
Haddonfield 
Dias  Creek 
Bridgeton 
Caldwell 
Swedesboro 
Union  Hill 
Stockton 
Yardville 


County 

Name 

Address 

Middlesex 

James  Neilson 

New  Bruns’k 

Monmouth 

William  H.  Reid 

Tennent 

Morris 

John  C.  Welsh 

Ger’n  Valley 

Ocean 

Joseph  Sapp 

Tuckerton 

Passaic 

Isaac  A.  Serven 

Clifton 

Salem 

Charles  R.  Hires 

Salem 

.Somerset 

Joseph  Larocque 

Bernardsville 

Sussex 

Robert  V.  Armstrong 

Augusta 

Union 

John  Z.  Hatfield 

Scotch  Plains 

Warren 

James  I.  Cooke 

Delaware 

STAFF. 


Jacob  G,  Lipman,  Ph.D. 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc 
Irving  E.  Quackenboss. 

Frank  Apf,  B.Sc Agronomist. 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.Sc.  . .Associate  Agronomist- 
r.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

IIalph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

.\rchie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W,  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

William  M.  Regan,  A.M.. Dairy  Flusbandman. 
Forest  Button,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 
John  Hill,  B.Sc,,  Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman, 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc. ..Asst.  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc... Asst.  Entomologist. 
VHncent  j.  Breazeale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc., 

Acting  Horticulturist. 
Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 


Director. 

Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

William  Schieferstein,  B.Sc., 

Orchard  F'oreman. 
I.YMAN  G.  Schermerhorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 

, H.  M.  BiEKART..r Florist. 

i Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.Agr.  .Poultry  Husbandman. 

^ Willard  C.  Thompson,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  M.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman. 

I Elmer  H.  Wene Poultry  Foreman. 

; John  P.  Helyar,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

j Jesse  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 

Leslie  E.  Hazen,  M.E., 

I In  Charge  of  Rural  Engineering. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B Assistant  Editor. 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 


W.  H.  S,  DEMAREST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS ; New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. 


STAFF. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Director. 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B Chief  Clerk. 


John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.Sc Assistant  in  Botany. 

Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding. 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist. 

.\lvah  Peterson,  Ph.D Asst.  Entomologist. 

.\ugusta  Meske.  ...  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 

.Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D Plant  Pathologist. 

William  II.  Martin.  Ph.D., 

Associate  Plant  Pathologist. 


Gertrude  E.  Macpherson,  A.B., 

Research  Assistant  in  Plant  Pathology. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 

Jacob  Joffe,  B.Sc Research  Assistant. 

Cyrus  Witmer,  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


Staff  list  revised  to  January  1,  1919. 


C2) 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS 
BULLETIN  333 

October  26,  1918 


ANALYSES  OF  MATERIALS  SOLD  AS  INSECTICIDES 
AND  FUNGICIDES  DURING  1918 


By 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  State  Chemist, 

AND 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  Assistant  Chemist 


In  accordance  with  the  requirement  of  the  law  of  New  Jersey 
entitled  “An  Act  to  Regulate  the  Sale  of  Insecticides,”  the  annual 
inspection  for  the  year  1918  was  made  and  the  results  obtained  are 
lierewith  presented. 

/ 

Registrations 

The  law  requires'  an  annual  registration  of  the  brands  of  materials 
that  will  be  offered  for  sale,  and  in  accordance  with  this  require- 
ment the  following  manufacturers  registered  192  brands : 


Allen  Manufacturing  Co. . . . 
Aphine  Manufacturing  Co . . 

E.  J.  Barry 

James  A.  Blanchard  Co 

Bowker  Insecticide  Co 

Bristol-Myers  Co. 

Cinnakol  Chemical  Sales  Co 

Corona  Chemical  Co 

Danforth  Chemical  Co 

Devoe  & Raynolds  Co.,  Inc. 


Quakertown,  N.  J. 

Madison,  N.  J. 

New  York  City. 

New  York  City. 

Boston,  Mass.,  and  Baltimore,  Md. 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Bayonne,  N.  J. 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Leominster,  Mass. 

New  York  City. 


(3) 


Bulletin  333 


Dow  Chemical  Co 

Felton,  Sibley  & Co.,  Inc 

Samuel  H.  French  & Co 

General  Chemical  Co 

The  Glidden  Co 

Grasselli  Chemical  Co 

Hemingway  & Co 

Morris  Herrmann  & Co 

Interstate  Chemical  Co 

Kentnck}^  Tobacco  Product  Co 

The  Kil-Tone  Co 

P'red  L.  Lavanburg  Co 

Arthur  Laver  

Leggett  & Brother  

Lehn  & Fink,  Inc 

John  Lucas  & Co.,  Inc 

McCormick  & Co.,  Inc 

Mechling  Bros.  Manufacturing  Co . . 

The  Mendleson  Corporation 

Merrimac  Chemical  Co 

Niagara  Sprayer  Co 

Nitrate  Agencies  Co 

Pfeiffer  Color  Co 

The  Plantlife  Co 

Powers- Weightman-Rosengarten  Co 

B.  G.  Pratt  Co 

The  Rex  Co 

Riches,  Piver  & Co 

Schering  & Glatz,  Inc. 

.Sherwin-Williams  Co 

H.  J.  Smith  & Co 

Smith,  Kline  & French  Co 

Sterling  Chemical  Co 

Vreeland  Chemical  Co 


. M idland,  Alich. 

. Philadelphia,  Pa. 

. Philadelphia,  Pa. 
.New  York  City. 
.Cleveland,  O. 
.Cleveland,  O. 
.Bound  Brook,  N.  J. 
.New'  York  City. 
.Jersey  City,  N.  J. 
.Louisville,  Ky. 
.Vineland,  N.  J. 
.New  York  City. 

. Bernardsville,  N.  J. 
.New  York  City. 
.New  York  City. 

. Pliiladelphia,  Pa. 
.Baltimore,  Md. 

. Camden,  N.  J. 
.Albany,  N.  Y. 

. Boston,  Mass. 

. Middleport,  N.  Y. 
.New  York  City. 
.New  York  City. 
.New  York  City. 
.Philadelphia,  Pa. 
.New  York  City. 
.Rochester,  N.  Y, 
.Hoboken,  N.  J. 
.New  York  City. 
.Cleveland,  O. 

.Utica,  N.  Y. 
.Philadelphia,  Pa. 
.Cambridge,  Mass. 
.Little  Falls,  N.  J. 


Inspection 

The  collection  of  the  samples  of  insecticides,  taken  as  a whole,  is 
more  difficult  than  any  of  the  inspections  which  the  Station  is  re- 
quired to  make,  and  this  is  largely  due  to  the  mechanical  condition 
of  many  of  the  materials  used.  It  is  fully  appreciated  that  in  order 
to  secure  results  by  the  chemical  analyses  which  would  represent  the 
shipment,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  a sample  that  is  repre- 
sentative. 

Accurate  sampling  of  the  dry,  powdered  materials  can  be  made 
without  much  difficulty  provided  the  usual  care  is  taken,  but  the 


ANAI.^■Sl•:s  OF  I XSKCTK'IDICS  AND  FUNGICIDES  5 

sampling  of  the  materials  in  a paste  form  presents  problems  which 
under  certain  conditions  cannot  be  overcome. 

The  instructions  given  the  sampler  for  securing  the  samples  of 
such  materials  would  result  in  securing  an  accurate  sample  from  a 
package  which  had  not  been  opened,  because  the  material  must  be 
thoroughly  mixed  before  the  sample  is  drawn.  Very  frequently, 
however,  a request  is  made  to  take  a sample  from  a keg  which  has 
been  opened  and  a portion  of  the  contents  removed.  It  is  quite 
possible  in  such  cases  that  the  sample  will  have  a lower  content  of 
water  than  was  contained  in  the  material  at  the  time  of  shipment, 
and  consequently  there  would  be  a higher  content  of  the  solid  con- 
stituents. The  result  of  this  condition  is  that  the  analysis  of  the 
sample  taken  may  give  the  correct  percentage  for  the  weight  of 
material  purchased,  or  it  may  indicate  that  the  material  contains  a 
higher  percentage  composition  than  guaranteed.  It  is  safe  to  say, 
however,  that  the  results  would  seldom  show  a lower  composition 
than  the  actual  figures  obtained  at  the  time  of  shipment. 

In  order  to  secure  results  that  would  fairly  represent  the  brand, 
it  has  been  our  practice  to  obtain  samples  in  their  original  packages 
as  well  as  those  taken  from  the  larger  shipments.  The  samples  ob- 
tained in  original  packages  are  subsampled  in  the  laboratory  and  in 
such  a manner  as  to  remove  any  possible  doubt  as  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  portion  taken  for  analysis. 

In  making  an  interpretation  of  the  reports  it  is  necessary  to  have 
in  mind  the  above  facts  in  order  that  correct  conclusions  may  be 
reached. 

The  total  number  of  samples  collected  was  95.  This  report  con- 
tains the  results  obtained  by  the  analysis  of  89  samples,  consisting  of  : 

12  samples  of  Paris  Green. 

25  samples  of  Lead  Arsenate. 

9 samples  of  Bordeaux  Mixture. 

6 samples  of  Lime  Sulphur. 

4 samples  of  Tobacco  Products. 

33  samples  of  Miscellaneous  Brands. 

Twelve  samples  of  Paris  green  are  reported,  six  of  which  were 
received  in  original  packages.  The  samples  received  in  original 
packages  were  carefully  weighed  with  and  without  the  container 
and  all  of  the  packages  were  found  to  contain  the  full  weight 
claimed. 


6 


Bulletin  333 


The  law  fixes  the  standard  for  Paris  green,  since  the  material  is 
deemed  adulterated  ( 1 ) if  it  does  not  contain  at  least  50  per  cent  of 
arsenious  oxide,  and  (2)  if  it  contains  arsenic  in  water-soluble 
forms  equivalent  to  more  than  3.50  per  cent  of  arsenious  oxide.  In 
accordance  with  these  requirements  all  of  the  samples  were  satis- 
factor^L 

Paris  green  is  essentially  copper  aceto-arsenite  and,  if  pure,  the 
ratio  of  the  content  of  arsenic  stated  in  terms  of  arsenious  oxide 
to  the  content  of  copper  stated  in  terms  of  copper  oxide  is  1.87  to 
1.00.  The  ratio  was  calculated  for  each  of  the  samples  examined, 
and  it  was  found  that  five  samples,  Nos.  18067,  18041,  18060,  18088 
and  18042,  gave  a wider  ratio  than  the  theoretical,  which  would  indi- 
cate the  presence  of  uncombined  arsenic. 

Table  1 
Paris  Green 


! 

Arsenious 

Oxide 

. 

Total 

Water- 

Soluble 

Station  Nunibei 

! -Manufacturer  or  Jobber  and 

Trade  Mark  or  Brand 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 
not  more  than 

C 

V 

1806/ 

E.  J.  Barry,  New  York  City 

Strictly  Pure  Paris  Green  ... 

% 

52.17 

% 

50.00 

% 

2.68 

% 

3.50 

% 

\ 

17 .01 

18041 

Jas.  A.  Blanchard,  New  York  City. 

Lion  Brand  Paris  Green  

1 

50.90 

50.00 

2.91 

3.50 

24.84 

18060 

Lion  Brand  Paris  Green  

55,02 

50.00 

2.01 

3.50 

28.82 

18006 

1'.  M'.  Devoc  & C.  T.  Raynolds  Co.,  New  York  City. 

C.  T.  Raynolds  & Co.’s  Paris  Green  

56.06 

50.00 

1.45 

3.50 

i 

i 30.03 

18088 

Fred  L.  Lavanburg,  New  York  City. 

.Star  Brand  Paris  Green  

56.52 

50.00 

1.34 

3.50 

j 

29.67 

18005 

Leggett  & Bro.,  New  York  City. 

.Anchor  Brand  Pure  Paris  Green  

56.17 

50.00 

1.12 

3.50 

1 

30.03 

18083 

.\nchor  Brand  Pure  I’aris  Green  

55.33 

50.00 

1.01 

3.50 

29.67 

18040' 

Nitrate  Agencies  Co.,  New  York  City. 

\’itrio  I’aris  Green  

54.66 

50.00 

1.45 

3.50 

29.43 

18042 

Vitrio  Paris  Green  

56.17 

50.00 

1.79 

3.50 

28.58 

18043 

Pfeiffer  Color  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Strictly  Pure  Paris  Green  

55.52 

50.00 

1.34 

1 

3.50 

1 

29.55 

18072 

Strictly  Pure  Paris  Green  

55.40 

50.00 

1.34 

3.50  1 

29.31 

18004 

.Sherwin-Williams  Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

Strictly  Pure  Paris  Green  

55.94 

50.00 

1.68 

1 

3.50 

30.27 

Analyses  oe  Insecticides  and  Fungicides 


7 


Table  2 


Lead  Arsenate — Paste — Original  Packages 


.Slation  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber  and 

Trade  Mark  or  Brand 

: 

1 

U 

Total 

Arsenic 

Oxide 

____  i 

Water- 

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(Metallic) 

Lead  Oxide 

Soluble  Impurities  (exclus- 

ive of  Soluble  Arsenic) 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

not  more  than 

% 

% i 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  0.  ' 

1 1 

18094 

Grasselli  Arsenate  of  Lead  Paste.  | 

48.78 

16.83  ; 

15.00 

0.18 

0.50 

31.62 

0.71 

Hemingway  N-  Co..  Inc.,  Bound  Brook,  | 

1 

1 ! 

1 

N.  J.  ^ 

' i 

1 

i 

18078 

Lead  Arsenate  Paste  j 

43.68 

! 16.70  ! 

15.00 

0.15 

0.50 

38.44 

1.06 

Interstate  Chemical  Co.,  Jersey  City  1 

18061 

Target  Brand  Arsenate  of  Lead 

Paste  

40.69 

17.59 

15.50 

0.11 

39.46 

1.76 

18084 

Key  Brand  Arsenate  of  Lead  Paste 

32.13 

21.36 

15.50 

0.13 

43.86 

1.61 

Powers- W'eightman-Rosengarten  Co., 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

18081 

P-\V-R  Lead-Arsenate  Paste 

1 46.98 

17.25 

15.00 

0.14 

0.  75 

33.89 

0.65 

Lead  Arsenate — I’aste — Samples  of  L.arger  Shipments 


18021 

j Ansbacher  Insecticide  Co.,  N.  Y.  City. 
Triangle  Brand  Arsenate  of  Lead 
Paste  

! 49.25 

i 

: 16.33 

15.00 

0.74 

0.50 

31.08 

2.08 

18081 

Bowker  Insecticide  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 
Bowker’s  Arsenate  of  Lead  Paste 

1 

47.25 

15.91 

14.00 

0.20 

1 *0.39 

33.53 

2.05 

18046 

General  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 
Orchard  Brand  Standard  Arsenate 
of  Lead  Paste  

46.91 

16.98 

15.00 

0.49 

0.49 

34.07 

1.35 

18022 

Interstate  CLemical  Co.,  Jersey  City, 
Key  Brand  Arsenate  of  Lead  Paste 

50.28 

16.18 

15.50 

1 

I 0.27  1 

31.93 

0.83 

* Calculated  from  guarantee  given  in  terms  of  arsenic  oxide. 


s 


Bulletin  333 


Table  2 — (Continued) 
Lead  Arsenate — Powder 


Station  Number 

Manufacturer  or  Jobber  and  \ 

Trade  Mark  or  Brand 

Total 

Arsenic 

Oxide 

Water 

Soluble 

Arsenic 

(Metallic) 

Lead  Oxide 

Soluble  Impurities  (exclus- 

ive of  Soluble  Arsenic)  1 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

not  more  than 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Ansbacher  Insecticide  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18029 

Triangle  Brand  Dry  Arsenate  of  Lead.. 

32.4? 

30.00 

0.92 

20.65 

62.67 

2.09 

Corona  Chemical  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18032 

Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Lead 

33.12 

^29.90 

0.46 

0.50 

64.05 

0.95 

18089 

Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Lead 

32.40 

129.90 

0.36 

0.50 

65.10 

0.44 

General  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18024 

Orchard  Brand  Standard  Powdered  Ar- 

senate of  Lead  

31.97 

31.00 

0.82 

0.96 

64.31 

1.74 

18025 

Orchard  Brand  Standard  Powdered  Ar- 

senate of  Lead  

31.03 

30.00 

0.82 

0.98 

65.09 

2.04 

Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

1 

18093 

Grasselli  Arsenate  of  Lead  Powder  . . 1 . . 

32.18 

31.00 

0.37 

0.50 

64.98 

1 0.39 

Interstate  Chemical  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

i 

18008 

Key  Brand  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of 

Lead  

26.93 

30.00 

0.5o 

0.75 

70.86 

1 1.24 

18023 

Key  Brand  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of 

Lead  

26.21 

30.00 

0.28 

0.75 

70.12 

1 1.32 

The  Kil-Tone  Co.,  Vineland,  N.  J. 

1802? 

Green  Cross  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of 

Lead  

30.24 

30.00 

0.45 

0.66 

66.57 

0.80 

18074 

Green  Cross  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of 

Lead  

31.46 

31.00 

0.45 

0.66 

65.22 

0.70 

18071 

Green  Cross  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of 

Lead  

31.03 

31.00 

0.64 

0.66 

66.02 

1 0.52 

Sherwin-Williams  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

1800? 

Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Lead  

32.54 

30.00 

0.36 

20.65 

63.47 

1.44 

18030 

! Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Lead 

33.06 

30.00 

1.37 

20.65 

62.42 

1 1.14 

1 Thomsen  Chemical  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

1 

18075 

Orchard  Brand  Powdered  Arsenate  of 

Lead  (Standard)  

31.82 

31.00 

1.12 

0.98 

64.15 

2.13 

Vreeland  Chemical  Co.,  Little  Falls,  N.  J. 

18050 

Electro  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Lead. 

31.03 

31.00 

0.42 

0.66 

63.31 

1.33 

18065 

Electro  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Lead. 

31.60 

30.00 

0.42 

1 0.50 

65.22 

0.88 

1 Calculated  from  guarantee  given  in  terms  of  metallic  arsenic. 
Calculated  from  guarantee  given  in  terms  of  arsenic  oxide. 


Analyses  of  Insecticides  and  Fungicides  9 

Twenty- five  samples  of  lead  arsenate  were  examined,  nine  of 
which  were  in  the  paste  form  and  the  remainder  were  in  the  form 
of  a dry  powder.  Seven  of  the  samples  were  received  in  original 
[>ackages  and  the  net  weight  of  the  contents  in  six  instances  equalled 
or  exceeded  the  weight  claimed.  The  other  sample,  No.  18084,  was 
in  the  paste  form  and  the  carton  was  damaged.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  the  difference  in  weight  was  caused  by  a loss  of  water,  as  the 
analysis  shows  a low  water  content  for  this  class  of  material. 

In  accordance  with  the  standard  as  given  in  the  law,  a lead  ar- 
senate would  be  considered  adulterated  (1)  if  it  contains  more  than 
50  per  cent  of  water,  (2)  if  it  contains  less  than  12.50  per  cent  of 
arsenic  oxide,  and  (3)  if  it  contains  water-soluble  arsenic  equiva- 
lent to  more  than  0.75  per  cent  of  arsenic  oxide. 

Seven  of  the  samples  in  the  paste  form  satisfied  all  of  the  re- 
([uirements,  but  one  sample.  No.  18022,  contained  a slight  excess  of 
water,  and  another  sample.  No.  18021,  contained  an  excess  of  water- 
soluble  arsenic. 

Eleven  samples  of  the  powdered  lead  arsenate  satisfied  the  guaran- 
tees given.  Two  samples.  Nos.  18008  and  18023,  were  low  in  con- 
tent of  total  arsenic  oxide,  and  three  samples.  Nos.  18029,  18030 
and  18075,  contained  an  excess  of  water-soluble  arsenic. 

Bordeaux  Mixtures 

18011.  Lion  Brand  Bordeaux  Mixture.  Manufactured  by  Jas.  A.  Blanch- 
ard Co.,  New  York  City. 

18033.  Corona  Dry  Bordeaux  Mixture.  Manufactured  by  Corona  Chemi- 
cal Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

18047.  Orchard  Brand  Bordeaux  Mixture  (Paste).  Manufactured  by 
General  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18012.  Key  Brand  Bordeaux  Mixture  (Dry  Powder).  Manufactured  by 
Interstate  Chemical  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

18063.  Target  Brand  Bordeaux  Mixture  (Liquid).  Manufactured  by  In- 
terstate Chemical  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

18086.  Key  Brand  Bordeaux  Mixture.  Manufactured  by  Interstate  Chemi- 
cal Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

18059.  Leggett’s  Dry  Bordeaux  Mixture.  Manufactured  by  Leggett  and 
Brother,  New  York  City. 

18077.  Anchor  Brand  Bordeaux  Mixture  (Paste).  Manufactured  by  Leg- 
gett and  Brother,  New  York  City. 

18068.  Sterlingworth  Liquid  Bordeaux  Mixture.  Manufactured  by  Ster- 
ling Chemical  Co.,  Cambridge,  Mass. 


10 


Bulletin  333 


Sample  No. 

Water 

Copper 

Found 

Guaranteed 

per  cent 

per  cent 

per  cent 

ISOll  

71.16 

4.28 

4.00 

18033  

1 

10.94 

11.00 

180-17  

60.65 

10.09 

9.00 

18012  

10.31 

10.00 

18063  



73.43 

3.88 

4.00 

18086  

77.97 

4.05 

4.00 

18059  

1 

12.01 

11.00 

18077  

53.23 

5.67 

4.50 

18068  

68.22 

3.01 

3.00 

Lime-Sulphur  Solutions 

19038.  Orchard  Brand  Lirne-Sulphiir  Solution.  Manufacture  by  General 
Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

18082.  Grasselli  Lime-Sulphur  Solution.  Manufactured  by  Gra.sselli  Chemi- 
cal Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

18091.  Grasselli  Lime-Sulphur  Solution.  Manufactured  by  Grasselli  Chemi- 
cal Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

18039.  Lime-Sulphur  Solution.  Manufactured  by  J.  L.  Lippincott  Co.,  Rive- 
erton,  N.  J. 

18064.  Lime-Sulphur  Solution.  Manufactured  by  Mechling  Bros.  Manufac- 
turing Co.,  Camden,  N.  J, 

18070.  Lime-Sulphur  Solution.  Alanu factored  by  Mechlin  Bros.  iManufac- 
turing  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J. 


Sample  No.  : 

Sulphur  in  Solution 

Density : 

Degrees 

Baume 

Found 

Guaranteed  j 

per  cent 

per  cent  i 

18038  

25.67 

25.00  ,! 

33. 

18082  

1 

26.74 

25.00  ! 

33. 

18091  

1 

26.26 

25.00 

33. 

18039  

1 

15.89 

24. 

18064  

i 

1 

26.44 

25.00 

33. 

18070  

1 

! 

28.13 

25.00 

34. 

Tobacco  Products 

18092.  Grasselli  Brand  Sulphate  of  Nicotine.  Manufactured  by  Grasselli 
(.'hemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

18002.  Nico-Fume  Liquid.  Manufactured  by  Kentucky  Tobacco  Products 
( !o.,  Louisville,  Ky. 

18003.  Black  Leaf  40.  Manufactured  by  Kentucky  Tobacco  ITodncts  Co., 
Louisville,  Ky. 

18001.  Sterlingworth  Powdered  Tobacco.  Manufactured  by  Sterling  Chem- 
ical Co.,  Cambridge,  Mass. 


Analyses  of  Insecticides  and  Fungicides 


11 


Sample  No. 

Nicotine 

Found 

Guaranteed 

per  cent 

per  cent 

18092  

17.09 

15.00 

18002  

40.40 

40.00 

18003  

40.92 

40.00 

18001  

0.77 

1 0.35 

Miscellaneous  Materials 

18019.  Triangle  Brand  Adheso  Green  Label.  Manufactured  by  Ansbacher 
Insecticide  Co.,  New  York  City.  Sample  from  300-pound  package. 


Found  j 

Guaranteed 

W ater  

per  cent  i 
61.30  ' 

per  cent 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

5.62 

1 5.50 

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

0.14 

! *0.50 

Lead  Oxide 

1 16.53 

Copper  (Metallic)  

1 4.34 

4.00 

^Guaranteed  “less  than”  percentage  given. 


18053.  Triangle  Brand  Adhe.so  Yellow  Label.  Manufactured  by  Ansbacher 
Insecticide  Co.,  New  York  City.  Sample  from  300-pound  package. 


1 

Found  j 

Guaranteed 

! 

\Yatcr  i 

per  dent  I 
68.45 

per  cent 

6.01 

i 7.80 

18054.  Triangle  Brand  Ansbor  Green  Powder.  Manufactured  by  Ans- 
bacher Insecticide  Co.,  New  York  City.  Sample  from  100-pound  package. 


Found  1 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Copper  (TvXetsllic)  

per  cent 
14.11 

0.47 

17.70 

per  cent 
11.00 
*3.00 

1 .... 

^Guaranteed  “less  than”  percentage  given. 


18013.  Pyrox.  Manufactured  by  Bowker  Insecticide  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 
Sample  from  1 -pound  package. 

18016.  l^yrox.  Manufactured  by  Bowker  Insecticide  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 
Sample  fixim  50-pound  package. 


12 


Bulletin  333 


1 

1 Sample  18013 

Sample  18016 

' Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Water  

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  | 

Lead  Oxide  | 

Copper  (Metallic)  | 

per  cent 

61.06 

4.94 

0.21 

13.08 

3.12 

per  cent 

3.42 

1 ‘0.75 

1 12.00 

1 1.50 

per  cent 
58.37 
5.49 

0.22 

20.21 

2.97 

per  cent 

3.42 
‘0.75 
i 12.00 

i 1.50 

‘Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18048.  Orchard  Brand  Powdered  Arsenite  of  Zinc.  Manufactured  by 
^^neral  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City.  Sample  from  300-pound  package. 


Found  j 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic 
Water-Soluble 

(Metallic)  

Arsenic  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
33.50 
0.18 

per  cent 
30.50 
‘1.00 

‘Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18045.  Orchard  Brand  Bordeaux  Lead,  Paste.  Manufactured  by  General 


Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Sample  from  100-pound  package. 

* 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Water  

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

T>ead  Oxide 

Copper  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
46.23 

4.93 

0.20 

18.38 

1 7.18 

per  cent 

3.90 
! ‘0.49 

1 5.40 

‘Guaranteed  “ 

not  more  than”  percentage  given. 

18035.  Lazal.  Manufactured  by  General  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 
Sample  from  10-pound  package. 

18049.  Lazal.  Manufactured  by  General  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 
.Sample  from  100-pound  package. 


Sample 

: 18035 

Sample  18049 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

1 Guaranteed 

'I'otal  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
27.38 

per  cent 
! 27.00 

per  cent 
26.87 

j per  cent 
i 27.00 

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

0.18 

*1.00 

0.27 

j ‘1.00 

‘Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18937.  Orchard  Brand  Atomic  Sulphur.  Manufactured  by  General  Chemi- 
cal Co.,  New  York  City.  Sample  from  300-pound  package. 

18076.  Orchard  Brand  Atomic  Sulphur.  Manufactured  by  General  Chemi- 
cal Co.,  New  York  City..  Sample  from  300-pound  package. 


Analyses  of  Insecticides  and  Fungicides  13 


Sample  18037 

Sample  18076 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Water  

per  cent 
50.50 

per  cent  ' 

per  cent 
50.91 

per  cent 

Sulphur  

46.21 

45.00 

45.97 

45.00 

18079.  Caascii.  Manufactured  by  Hemingway  &:  Co.,  Inc.,  Bound  Brook. 
X.  J.  Sample  from  5-pound  package. 

18080.  Caascu.  Manufactured  by  Hemingway  & Co.,  Inc.,  Bound  Brook, 
N.  J.  Sample  from  1-pound  package. 


Sample 

: 18079 

Sample 

: 18080 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Copper  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
20.73 
2.02 
7.23 

per  cent 
17.00 
*4.00 

per  cent 
19.43 

1.93 

6.68 

per  cent 
17.00 

*4.00 

^Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18062.  Target  Brand  Bordo  Lead.  Manufactured  by  Interstate  Chemical 
Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.  Sample  from  1-pound  package. 

18073.  Key  Brand  Bordo  Lead.  Manufactured  by  Interstate  Chemical  Co., 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.  Sample  from  1 -pound  package. 

18085.  Key  Brand  Bordo  Lead.  Manufactured  by  Interstate  Chemical  Co., 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.  Sample  from  1 -pound  package. 


j Sample 

■ 18062 

Sample 

18073 

Sample  18085 

j Found 

Guaranteed 

1 Found  1 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Water  

per  cent 
60.68 

per  cent 

per  cent 
40.83 

per  cent 

per  cent 
57.79 

per  cent 

Total  Arsenic 
(Metallic)  . . 

5.63 

7.50 

8.49 

5.00 

5.53 

5.00 

Water-Soluble 
Arsenic  (Me- 
tallic)   

0.15 

0.21 

*0.50 

0.14 

*0.50 

Lead  Oxide. . . 

18.68 

24.25 

17.69 

Copper 

(Metallic)  . 

1.58 

3.40 

1.99 

*Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18017.  Improved  Kil-Tone.  Manufactured  by  The  Kil-Tone  Co.,  Vine- 
land,  N.  J.  Sample  from  150-pound  package. 

18057.  Improved  Kil-Tone.  Manufactured  by  The  Kil-Tone  Co.,  Vineland, 
N.  J.  Sample  from  100-pound  package. 


14 


Bulletin  333 


Sample  18017  ! 

Sample  18057 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Water  

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Lead  Oxide  

Copper  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
43.31 

8.02 

0.24 

27.60 

2.64 

per  cent 

5.80 

0.11 

per  cent 

1 54.80 

7.00 
0.24 

22.46 

1.94 

per  cent 

5.80 

0.11 

18058.  Modified  Kil-Tone.  Manufactured  by  The  Kil-Tone  Co.,  Vineland, 
N.  J.  Sample  from  150-pound  package. 


Found  Guaranteed 


Water  

Copper  (Metallic) 


per  cent 
5.58 


18018.  Beetle  Mort.  Manufactured  by  The  Kil-Tone  Co.,  Vineland,  N.  J. 
Sample  from  75-pound  package. 

18056.  Beetle  Mort.  Manufactured  by  The  Kil-Tone  Co.,  Vineland,  N.  J. 
.Sample  from  40-poimd  package. 


Sample  18018 


Sample  18056 


Found  Guaranteed 

Found 

j Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (.Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Coi)per  (Metallic)  

1 ]ier  cent  per  cent 

13.05  13.50 

0.59  ^0.66  • 

4.65  3.00 

per  cent 

13.79 

0.27 

4.28 

per  cent 
' 13.50 

*0.66 

3.00 

' ^Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given.' 

18051.  Green  Cross  Sulpho-Arsenate  Powder.  Alanufactured  by  The  Kil- 
Tone  Co.,  Vineland,  N.  J.  Sample  from  100-pound  package. 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Lead  Oxide  

Sulphur  

per  cent 
10.65 

0.36 

32.89 

48.79 

per  cent 

10.10 

*0.66 

48.00 

*Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 

18014.  Dry  Bordeaux  Alixture  and  Paris  Green  Compound.  Manufactured 
by  Leggett  & Brother,  New  York  City.  Sample  from  1-pound  package. 


Found 

Guaranteed 

per  cent 

per  cent 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

14.87 

12.50 

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

0.55 

*2 . 00 

Coi)per  Oxide  

18.66 

19.00 

^Guaranteed  “not  more  than’’  percentage  given. 


Analyses  of  Insecticides  and  FuN(iicTDfi:s  15 


18034.  B-Bly-D  Bug  Dust  No.  3.  Manufactured  hy  Leggett  & Brother, 
New  York  City.  Sample  from  25-pound  package. 


Found 

j Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Copper  (Metallic)  

per  cent 

16.43 

0.23 

9.45 

per  cent 
16.00 
*2.00 
i 

*Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 

18020.  Mecb ling’s  Green  Label  Hydroxide  No.  2,  Paste.  Manufactured 
by  Mechling  Bros.  Manufacturing  Co.,  Camden,  XL  J.  Sample  from  1-pound 
package. 

Found 

Guaranteed 

W ater  

Tatal  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Lead  Oxide  

Copper  (Metallic)  

per  cent  ' 
43.62 

9.21 

0.15 

30.39 

1.94 

per  cent 

6.50 
*0.50 

1.50 

^Guaranteed  “less  than”  percentage  given. 

18015.  Tuber-Tonic.  Manufactured  by  Sherwin-Williams  Co., 
N.  J.  Sample  from  25-pound  package. 

18090.  Tuber-Tonic.  Manufactured  by  Sherwin-Williams  Co., 
XL  J.  Sample  from  50-pound  package. 

18052.  Tuber-Ionic.  Manufactured  by  Sherwin-Williams  Co., 

X'ewark, 

, Newark, 

, Xewark. 

X.  j.  Sami)le  from  1-pound  package. 


i 

Sample 

18015 

Sample 

18090 

Sample 

18052 

Found  1 

Guaranteed 

Found 

Guaranteed  j 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic 

per  cent  1 

per  cent  . 

per  cent 

perxent 

per  cent 

per  cent 

(Metallic)  , 
Water-Soluble 
Arsenic  (Me- 

26.77 

24.00 

24.36 

24.00 

26.00 

24.00 

tallic)  

Copper 

0.55 

*3.00 

0.55 

*3.00 

0.55 

*3.00 

(Metallic) 

23.13 

* 23.25 

23.37 

^Guaranteed  ‘'not  over’*  percentage  given. 

18095.  Dry  Powdered  Insecto.  Manufactured  by  Sherwin-Williams  Co., 
Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.  Sample  from  50-pound  package. 


Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

Lead  Oxide  

Copper  (Metallic)  

per  cent 

11.14 

0.27 

33.54 

5.13 

per  cent 
12.00 
*0.50 

Guaranteed  “not  over”  percentage  given. 


16 


Bulletin  333 


18069.  Dry  Powdered  Arsenate  of  Calcium  and  Lead.  Alanufactured  by 
H.  J,  Smith  & Co.,  Utica,  N.  Y.  Sample  from  50-pound  package. 


! 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic 
Water-Soluble 
Lead  Oxide  . , 

(Metallic)  

Arsenic  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
13.75 
0.46 

2.15 

per  cent 

13.00 

*1.40 

^Guaranteed  “not  over”  percentage  given. 


18028.  Orchard  Brand  Powdered  Arsenite  of  Zinc.  Manufactured  by 
Thomsen  Chemical  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md.  Sample  from  50-pound  package. 


Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic 
Water-Soluble 

(Metallic)  

Arsenic  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
33.17 
0.27 

per  cent 
30.50 
*1.00 

*Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18031.  Electro  Micro.  Alanufactured  by  Vreeland  Chemical  Co.,  Little 
Falls,  N.  J.  Sample  from  100-pound  package. 


Found 

Guaranteed 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

per  cent 
10.39 

per  cent 
9.25 

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

0.27 

*0.50 

Lead  Oxide  

31.18 

Sulphur  

j 50.37 

48.00 

^Guaranteed  “not  more  than”  percentage  given. 


18066.  Electro  Bordo  Lead  Mixture.  Alanufactured  by  Vreeland  Chemical 
Co.,  Little  Falls,  N.  J.  Sample  from  l-pound  package. 


j Found 

Guaranteed 

per  cent 

per  cent 

Water  

51.83 

Total  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

4.18 

3.64 

Water-Soluble  Arsenic  (Metallic)  

0.18 

*0.50 

Lead  Oxide  

11.21 

Copper  (Metallic)  

1.95 

ANALYSES  OF  COMMERCIAL  iFERTILIZERS  AND 
GROUND  BONE; 

ANALYSES  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LIME 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL 

sperlmeiit  Btotisni 

BULLETIN  334 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  ftGRlGULTURftL  EXPERIMENT  STftTIONS* 


NEW  BRUNSWICK.  N.  J. 


STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880. 

BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 

His  Excellency  WALTER  E,  EDGE,  LL.D Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College. 

Address 
Elwood 
Ridgewood 
Vincentown 
Haddonfield 
Dias  Creek 
Bridgeton 
Caldwell 
Swedesboro 
Union  Plill 
Stockton 
Yardville 


County 
Atlantic 
Bergen 
Burlington 
Camden 
Cape  May 
Cumberland 
Essex 
Gloucester 
Hudson 
Hunterdon 
Mercer 


Name 

William  A.  Blair 
Arthur  Lozier 
R.  R.  Lippincott 
Ephraim  T.  Gill 
Charles  Vanaman 
Charles  F.  Seabrook 
Zenos  G.  Crane 
Wilbur  Beckett 
Diedrich  Bahrenburg 
Egbert  T.  Bush 
Josiah  T.  Allinson 


County 

Name 

Address 

Middlesex 

James  Neilson 

New  Bruns’k 

Monmouth 

William  H.  Reid 

Tennent 

Morris 

John  C.  Welsh 

Ger’n  V alley 

Ocean 

James  E.  Otis 

Tuckerton 

Passaic 

Isaac  A.  Serven 

Clifton 

Salem 

Charles  R.  Hires 

Salem 

Somerset 

Joseph  Larocque 

Bernardsville 

Sussex 

Robert  V.  Armstrong 

Augusta 

Union 

John  Z.  Hatfield 

Scotch  Plains 

Warren 

James  I.  Cooke 

Delaware 

STAFF. 


Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D Director. 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

Harriet  E.  Gowen Chief  Stenographer  and  Clerk. 


Frank  App,  B.Sc Agronomist. 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.Sc.  . .Associate  Agronomist. 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman. 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist. 

Edson  j.  Currier,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

F.  Raymond  Hunter Assistant  Chemist, 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc Assistant  Chemist. 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant. 

W.  Andrew  Cray Sampler  and  Assistant. 

William  M.  Regan,  A.M.. Dairy  Husbandman. 
Forrest  Button,  B.Sc.,  Asst.  Dairy  Husband’n. 
John  FIill,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman. 
Walter  R.  Robbers, 

Superintendent  of  Advanced  Registry. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist, 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc.  .Asst,  Entomologist. 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc. ..  .Asst.  Entomologist. 
Vincent  J.  Breazeale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Gardening. 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc.,  Acting  Horticulturist. 


Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture. 

William  Schieferstein Orchard  Foreman. 

Lyman  G.  Schermerhorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies. 

H.  M.  Biekart Florist. 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.Agr.  . Poultry  Husbandman. 
Willard  C.  Thompson,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman. 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  M.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research. 

George  H.  Pound,  B.Sc Poultry  Assistant. 

Morris  Siegel Poultry  Foreman., 

Elmer  H.  Wene Poultry  Foreman. 

John  P.  Helyar,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst. 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  Ph.B Asst.  Seed  Analyst. 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B Assistant  Editor. 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian. 

Leslie  E.  Hazen,  M.E., 

In  Charge  of  Rural  Engineering. 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888. 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD. 

'W.  H,  S.  DEMAREST,  D.D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP New  Brunswick. 

JAMES  NEILSON New  Brunswick. 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS New  York  City. 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan, 

STAFF. 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Director. 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B Chief  Gerk. 


John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D Plant  Physiologist. 

Earle  J.  Owen,  M.Sc Assistant  in  Botany. 

Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant. in  Plant  Breeding. 

Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid. 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist, 

Alvah  Peterson,  Ph.D.  ..  .Asst.  Entomologist. 
Augusta  E.  Meske,  ...  Stenographer  and  Qerk. 

Melville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D Plant  Pathologist. 

William  H.  Martin,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Plant  Pathologist. 


Gertrude  E.  Macpherson,  A.B., 

Research  Assistant  in  Plant  Pathology. 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist. 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist. 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research. 

Jacob  Joffe,  B.Sc Research  Assistant. 

Cyrus  Witmer,  Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant. 


Staff  list  revised  to  February  1,  1919. 


(2) 


NEW  JERSEY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 

AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Louis  A.  Cunton,  M.Sc.,  Director. 

Mrs.  Frank  App,  Acting  State  Leader  of  Home 
Demonstration. 

Victor  G.  Aubry,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  W.  Bartlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Superintend- 
ent and  State  Leader  of  Farm  Demonstra- 
tion. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Market 
Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fertility 
and  Agronomy. 

Marjory  Eells,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 


Edna  Gulick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 

Howard  F.  Huber,  B.Sc.,  Assistant  State 
Leader  of  Farm  Demonstration. 

Arthur  M.  Hulbert,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

M.  Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant’  State 
Club  Leader. 

William  M.  McIntyre,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Charles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Carl  R.  Woodward.  B.Sc.,  Editor. 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B.,  Assistant  Editor. 


H.  E.  Baldinger,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for  Sus- 
sex County. 

Wiixiam  P.  Brodie,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent, 
Salem  County. 

Frank  A.  Carroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County. 

Laura  V.  Clark,  A.B.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Newark.  , 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  'W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Elwood  Douglass,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Monmouth  County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  for 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  A.  Hoffman,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Morris  County. 

Harry  B.  Holcombe,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Burlington  County. 


William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Elva  Hughes,  Assistant  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Burlington  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

May  D.  Kemp,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

Zelma  Monroe,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

Adelia  F.  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cumberland  County. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cape  May  County. 

W.  Raymond  Stone,  Demonstrator  for  Bergen 
County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  Wettyen,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  .Atlantic  County. 


(3) 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Analyses  of  Commercial  Fertilizers  and  Ground  Bone 5 

Authority  for  Making  the  Inspection  5 

Registrations 5 

Reports  of  Tonnage 6 

Rules  and  Regulations 6 

The  Trade  Value  of  Essential  Elements  of  Plant-Food 8 

Collection  of  Samples 8 

Official  Samples  Selected  for  Examination 8 

The  Chemical  Examination  9 

Average  Guaranteed  and  Actual  Composition 10 

Quality  of  the  Plant-Food 13 

Station’s  Valuation  and  Selling  Price  14 

Ground  Bone 15 

Commercial  Fertilizers 20 

Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 20 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 23 

Ground  Bone 28 

Sundry  Materials 32 

Agricultural  Lime 33 

Registrations  33 

Inspection 34 

Lime 35 

Limestone 36 

Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Yead  Ending  Oct.  31,  1918.  . 37 

(4) 


NEW  JERSEY 

Agricultural  Experiment  Stations 

BULLETIN  334 

December  23,  1918 


ANALYSES  OF  COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS  AND 
GROUND  BONE ; 

ANALYSES  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LIME 


BY 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  State  Chemist  ^ 


A portion  of  the  results  obtained  during  the  fertilizer  inspection 
for  1918  was  published  in  Bulletin  331,  and  the  remaining  analyses, 
together  with  a discussion  ob  the  whole  inspection,  are  herewith 
presented. 

Authority  for  Making  the  Inspection 

The  law  entitled  “An  Act  Concerning  Fertilizers,”  approved 
March  27,  1912,  requires  fertilizers  to  be  sold  under  certain  regula- 
tions and  it  also  requires  an  annual  inspection  of  the  materials  sold. 
This  law  has  been  published  several  times  and  it  does  not  seem 
necessary  to  repeat  it  at  this  time.  All  persons  interested  in  the  sale 
and  use  of  fertilizers,  however,  should  be  familiar  with  this  law. 
Printed  copies  of  this  law  are  available  and  will  be  forwarded  to 
those  interested. 

Registrations 

During  the  year  122  manufacturers  and  jobbers  registered  1408 
brands  of  mixed  fertilizers  and  fertilizer  materials. 

^The  analyses  were  made  by  Ralph  L,  Willis,  Robert  H.  Cole,  Louis 
Schwartz  and  Archie  C,  Wark. 


(5) 


6 


Bulletin  334 


All  of  these  registrations  were  not  made  at  the  time  prescribed 
in  the  law,  since  our  inspectors  secured  samples  of  51  brands  before 
they  were  registered.  Last  year  there  were  86  brands  found  in  this 
condition  and  the  improvement,  is  appreciated. 

It  has  been  our  practice  to  publish  in  January  of  each  year  the 
registrations  made  up  tO'  that  time.  In  accordance  with  this  practice 
Bulletin  321  was  issued  under  date  of  January  28,  1918,  and  it  con- 
tained all  of  the  registrations  for  the  fiscal  year  made  up  to  that 
date.  The  registrations  received  since  that  date  will  be  found  in 
this  bulletin. 


Reports  of  Tonnage 

The  law  requires  the  manufacturers  or  parties  responsible  for 
the  sale  of  fertilizers  in  this  state  to  render  on  April  first  and 
November  first  of  each  year  a certified  report  of  the  tonnage  sold 
during  the  preceding  months.  The  reports  were  duly  rendered  and 
table  1 will  show  the  tonnage  reported  during  the  last  six  years. 


table  1 

SUMMARY  OF  TONNAGE  REPORTS 


April  Reports 

November  Reports 

Year 

Mixed 

Fertilizer 

Mixed 

Fertilizer 

Total  for 

Fertilizers 

Materials 

Fertilizers 

Materials 

the  Year 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

1913  ... 

87,446.91 

10,303.17 

51,706.28 

7,204.79 

156,661.15 

1914  ... 

78,768.27 

8,735.62 

59,223.26 

8,686.99 

155,414.14 

1915  ... 

87,052.13 

7,276.45 

53,288.11 

5,459.28 

153,075.97 

1916  ... 

61,368.88 

9,032.68 

52,328.81 

7,069.70 

129,800.07 

1917  ... 

86,840.44 

9,146.80 

74,231.13 

6,264.73 

176,483.10 

1918  ... 

90,371.85 

6,544.66 

51,404.20 

4,877.90 

153,198.61 

Rules  and  Regulations 

The  law  provides  that  the  state  chemist  shall  have  authority  to 
establish  rules  and  regulations  in  regard  to  the  inspection,  analyses 
and  sale  of  fertilizers.  In  accordance  with  this  provision  the  fol- 
lowing rulings  have  been  made: 

1.  Two  reports  are  required  annually,  and  the  dates  fixed  by 
the  law  are  April  first  and  November  first.  The  April  report  covers 
the  sales  from  November  first  to  April  first,  and  the  November 
report  covers  the  sales  from  April  first  to  November  first. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  7 

2.  Whenever  a corporation,  firm  or  person  shall  have  filed  a 
statement  required  b}^  section  2 of  the  law  and  shall  have  paid  the 
inspection  fee  as  required  by  section  4 of  the  law,  no  other  agent, 
importer,  corporation,  firm  or  person  shall  be  required  to  pay  the 
inspection  fee  upon  such  brands. 

3.  All  corporations,  firms  or  persons  who  have  registered  the 
regular  brands  manufactured  by  them  and,  also,  tlie  fertilizer 
materials  offered  for  sale  by  them,  can  furnish  mixtures,  commonly 
known  as  “Special  Mixtures”  or  “Special  Compounds,”  which  are 
prepared  for  immediate  delivery  and  in  accordance  with  a formula 
submitted  by  the  purchaser,  without  having  the  mixture  registered 
before  filling  the  order,  provided  the  following  procedure  is  adopted : 

(a)  A certified  statement  is  to  be  filed  with  the  state  chemist 
that  it  is  desired  to  make  “Special  Mixtures”  for  immediate  delivery 
in  accordance  with  formula  submitted  by  the  purchaser,  and  that 
the  tonnage  of  material  used  will  be  accounted  for  in  the  reports  that 
are  required  to  be  rendered. 

(b)  The  shipments  of  these  “Special  Mixtures”  during  the  fiscal 
year  are  to  be  numbered  consecutively,  a record  being  made  so  that 
the  formula  with  the  guaranteed  analysis  of  each  ingredient  used 
or  the  calculated  guarantee  of  the  mixture  can  be  furnished  the 
state  chemist  when  he  so  requests. 

(c)  The  shipments  are  to  be  in  plain  bags  with  tags  attached, 
giving  the  following  information  : 

Special  Mixture  No.  (5). 

Mixture  of  Registered  Ingredients  Prepared  for  (John  Jones, 
Salem,  N.  J.) 

Manufactured  by  (Smith  Fertilizer  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J.) 

4.  Reports  on  samples  which  are  found  to  satisfy  substantially 
the  guarantees  will  be  marked  “Official,”  and  are  submitted  to  the 
consumer  on  the  same  date  as  to  the  manufacturer.  When  analyses 
show  samples  to  be  deficient,  reports  are  submitted  to  m.anufacturers, 
and  objections  to  the  report  or  requests  for  a portion  of  duplicate 
sample  must  be  made  within  10  days  from  the  date  of  report  in 
order  to  receive  consideration.  Should  a manufacturer’s  report  on 
the  official  sample  differ  from  our  report,  every  effort  will  be  made 
to  locate  the  cause,  but  only  those  results  that  can  be  duplicated  in 
this  laboratory  by  the  use  of  the  methods  adopted  by  the  Association 
of  Official  Agricultural  Chemists  will  be  accepted  as  official. 


8 Bulletin  334 

The  Trade  Value  of  the  Essential  Elements  of  Plant-Food 

The  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of  standard  raw  materials  and 
chemicals  during  the  years  of  1916  and  1917  were  so  great  that  it 
was  not  deemed  advisable  to  prepare  a schedule  of  trade  values. 
Inasmuch  as  the  condition  had  not  improved  during  the  present  year 
it  is  necessary  to  omit  the  schedule  for  the  year  1918. 

Collection  of  Samples 

The  work  of  collecting  the  samples  of  fertilizers  and  fertilizer 
materials  was  entrusted  to  our  two  inspectors  and  although  an  early 
and  thorough  inspection  was  made  it  was  not  possible  to  secure  as 
many  different  brands  as  in  the  past  few  years.  This  condition  may 
have  been  due  to  a smaller  number  of  brands  being  sold  or  to  the 
fact  that  fertilizer  shipments  are  being  made  earlier  than  in  the 
past  years. 

In  addition  to  the  usual  spring  collection,  samples  of  the  fall  ship- 
ments were  secured  and  as  a result  a few  new  brands  were  located 
as  well  as  a number  of  samples  of  the  brands  which  had  been 
previously  collected. 

The  inspectors  visited  every  county  in  the  state  and  a total  of 
1385  samples  were  received  at  the  Station,  all  but  a small  percentage 
of  which  were  collected  by  the  official  inspectors.  The  samples  re- 
ceived represented  the  stock  of  526  dealers  and  consumers  who  were 
located  in  208  cities  and  towns. 

The  samples  that  were  forwarded  by  individuals  were  duly  exam- 
ined and  the  reports  submitted  to  the  parties  requesting  the  analyses. 

Official  Samples  Selected  for  Examination 

The  samplers  receive  definite  instructions  regarding  the  method 
of  sampling  and  also  in  regard  to  the  number  of  samples  to  be 
taken  of  each  particular  brand,  and  as  a result,  in  most  cases  two 
samples  of  a brand  are  collected  and  in  other  cases  a larger  multiple 
is  received.  It  is  not  possible  to  examine  all  of  these  samples,  and 
it  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  make  a selection  from  the  collection  at 
hand.  In  making  this  selection  every  brand  collected  is  examined. 
If  only  one  sample  of  a brand  has  been  received  there  can  be  no 
selection  but  when  more  than  one  sample  of  a brand  has  been 
received  it  is  our  practice  to  select  the  one  that  represented  the 
largest  stock  on  hand  at  the  time  of  sampling. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  9 

During  the  past  few  years  the  department  has  endeavored  to  dis- 
courage the  sending  of  samples  of  the  commercial  fertilizers  by 
individuals  and  the  reason  for  this  is  that  usually  the  sample  does 
not  represent  the  material  and  the  value  of  the  results  obtained  by 
the  analysis  of  such  a sample  is  doubtful.  We  are  more  than  will- 
ing to  be  of  service  to  the  citizens  of  this  state  and  this  service  can 
be  made  beneficial  provided  there  is  no  injustice  done  to  either  the 
consumer  or  the  manufacturer.  If  an  analysis  of  a shipment  is 
desired,  the  proper  thing  to  do  is  to  notify  the  state  chemist  that  the 
shipment  has  been  received  and  inform  him  as  to  the  brand  name 
of  the  material,  the  name  of  the  manufacturer  and  the  number  of 
tons  of  the  brand  in  stock.  Upon  receipt  of  such  information,  if 
the  tonnage  warrants,  arrangements  will  be  made  to  have  an  official 
sampler  draw  the  sample  for  analysis  without  any  expense  to  the 
party  making  the  request.  The  analysis  of  such  a sample  would 
give  more  satisfactory  results  than  it  would  if  the  sample  had  not 
been  accurately  drawn. 

The  samples  analyzed  during  the  present  year  consisted  of 
the  following: 

502  Samples  of  Commercial  Fertilizers.  , 

69  Samples  of  Commercial  Fertilizers  (duplicates). 

5 Samples  of  Home  Mixtures. 

10  Samples  of  Humus  and  Manures. 

114  Samples  of  Fertilizer  Materials. 

46  Samples  of  Ground  Bone. 

168  Samples  of  Sundry  Materials. 

914  Samples,  Total. 

The  Chemical  Examination 

Chemical  investigations  have  shown  that  of  all  of  the  chemical 
elements  necessary  to  plant  life  only  three  elements,  nitrogen, 
phosphoric  acid  and  potash,  are  likely  to  be  deficient  in  the  soils  or 
most  quickly  exhausted  by  the  production  and  removal  of  crops. 
These  three  elements,  are,  therefore,  called  “essential  elements.”  In 
order  to  meet  this  condition  about  6,500,000  tons  are  sold  annually 
in  the  United  States,  while  the  approximate  annual  tonnage  in  New 
Jersey  is  170,000  tons.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  give  an  accurate 
figure  as  to  the  cost  of  fertilizers  used  in  this  state,  but  for  the  year 
1918  it  undoubtedly  amounted  to  $6,500,000  or  more  and,  conse- 
quently, is  an  important  item  in  our  expense  account. 


10  Bulletin  334 

All  brands  of  commercial  fertilizers  are  mixtures  of  various 
materials  and  the  differences  that  exist  in  the  brands  of  the  different 
manufacturers  are  due  to  the  differences  in  the  chaiacter  and  to  the 
variations  in  the  quantities  of  the  materials  used  in  preparing  the 
different  brands.  The  value  of  any  fertilizer  depends  upon  the 
amount  and  form  of  the  nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid  and  potash 
contained. 

Generally  speaking  all  o4  the  manufacturers  have  an  opportunity 
to  secure  the  same  classes  of  materials,  while  the  amounts  of  these 
products  used  in  the  mixtures  will  depend  upon  the  desires  of  the 
manufacturer  at  the  time  of  making  his  mixtures. 

The  difference  between  a good  fertilizer  and  a poor  one  is  not  so 
much  a difference  in  the  total  amount  of  plant  food  contained  as  it 
is  in  the  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  materials  used  to  prepare  the 
mixtures.  This  statement  may  be  made  clearer  by  assuming  that 
one  mixture  had  been  prepared  by  the  use  of  low  grade  nitrogenous 
materials  and  untreated  phosphate,  while  another  mixture  had  been 
prepared  by  the  use  of  high  grade  ammoniates  and  acid  phosphate. 
The  total  plant  food  in  the  two  mixtures  may  be  exactly  the  same 
but  the  immediate  results  obtained  by  the  use  of  the  first  mixture 
would  not  be  as  satisfactory  as  those  obtained  by  the  use  of  the 
second  mixture. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  know  the  true  value  of  a fertilizer  it  is 
necessary  to  determine  not  only  its  total  content  of  plant-food  but 
also  the  form  in  which  these  elements  are  present  in  the  mixture. 

The  results  tabulated  in  Bulletin  331  and  on  the  following  pages 
will  show  the  form  of  the  essential  elements  as  well  as  the  total  con- 
tent of  plant- food  and  will  thus  permit  those  interested  to  determine 
which  brands  are  best  suited  to  their  needs. 

Average  Guaranteed  and  Actual  Composition 

The  total  number  of  brands  of  mixed  fertilizers  examined  was 
502,  of  which  214  were  guaranteed  to  contain  nitrogen,  phosphoric 
acid  and  potash  and  the  other  288  brands  did  not  guarantee  potash. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  11 

TABLE  2 

AVERACiE  OF  214  BRANDS  CONTAINING  NITROGEN,  PHOSPORIC  ACID  AND 

POTASH 


Average 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Nitrogen,  as  nitrates  

0.79 

Nitrogen,  as  ammonia  salts  

0.63 

Nitrogen,  as  water-soluble  organic  

0.27 

Nitrogen,  as  water-insoluble  organic  

0.62 

Nitrogen,  total  

2.31 

2.33 

Phosphoric  acid,  total  

10.19 

Phosphoric  acid,  insoluble  

1.66 

Phosphoric  acid,  available  

8.53 

8.33 

Potash  

1.96 

1.89 

TABLE  3 

AVERAGE  OF  288  BRANDS  CONTAINING  NITROGEN  AND  PHOSPHORIC  ACID 


Average 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Nitrogen,  as  nitrates  

0.72 

Nitrogen,  as  ammonia  salts  

0.60 

Nitrogen,  as  water-soluble  organic  

0.34 

Nitrogen,  as  w’ater-insoluble  organic  

0.73 

Nitrogen,  total  

2.39 

2.43  . 

Phosphoric  acid,  total  

11.64 

Phosphoric  acid,  insoluble  

1.82 

Phosphoric  acid,  available  

9.82 

9.55 

By  referring  to  tables  2 and  3,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  average 
composition  of  the  brands  examined  was  substantially  equal  to  the 
average  guarantees,  the  figures  for  total  nitrogen  being  slightly  less 
and  the  figures  for  phosphoric  acid  and  potash  being  larger  than  the 
average  guarantees.  A detailed  study  of  the  record  for  each  indi- 
vidual brand,  however,  will  show  that  114  brands  fully  sustained 
their  guarantees  and  that  238  brands  were  substantially  in  the  same 
condition.  There  were  150,  or  30  per  cent,  deficient  brands,  134 
being  deficient  in  one  element  and  16  deficient  in  two  elements. 

In  order  to  compare  the  deficiencies  with  the  preceding  years 
table  4 has  been  prepared.  In  preparing  this  tabulation,  deficiencies 
of  0.20  per  cent  or  less  of  nitrogen  and  0.30  per  cent  or  less  of 
phosphoric  acid  have  been  disregarded. 


12 


Bulletin  334 


TABLE  4 

COMPARISON  OF  DEFICIENCIES  FROM  1908  TO  1918 


Year 


Number  of  Brands 


c 

C o 
3 ^ 


Actual  Deficiencies 


xi 

a 


W 

Q 

Ph  C 

Q 

>5 

s < 

Ph 

CL, 

1908  .. 

463 

227 

236 

51 

1,389 

96 

149 

31 

19.8 

1909  .. 

483 

280 

203 

42 

1,449 

71 

137 

36 

16.8 

1910  .. 

520 

316 

204 

39 

1,560 

51 

142 

45 

15.3 

1911  ,. 

514 

341 

173 

34 

1,542 

36 

115 

42 

12.5 

1912  .. 

536 

326 

210 

39 

1,608 

47 

146 

33 

14.1 

1913  .. 

623 

457 

166 

28 

1,869 

74 

86 

36 

10.5 

1914  .. 

608 

420 

188 

31 

1,824 

63 

92 

49 

11.2 

1915  .. 

543 

367 

176 

32 

1,629 

94 

83 

31 

12.8 

1916  .. 

565 

356 

209 

37 

1,406 

139 

81 

17 

16.9 

1917  .. 

552 

380 

172 

31 

1,360 

85 

88 

15 

13.8 

1918  .. 

502 

352 

150 

30 

1,218 

82 

69 

15 

13.6 

In  the  502  brands  examined  there  were  1218  deficiencies  possible, 
and  of  this  number  166,  or  13.6  per  cent,  were  found.  These  defi- 
ciencies were  distributed  as  follows : — nitrogen  82,  phosphoric  acid 
69,  and  potash  15. 

The  record  for  this  year  compares  very  favorably  with  the  report 
for  1917,  if  one  is  satisfied  with  such  facts  computed  on  a percentage 
basis.  We  have  repeatedly  stated  that  we  believe  the  manufacturers 
intend  to  deliver  the  materials  as  guaranteed  and  we  have  no'  reason 
to  change  our  opinion  at  this  time.  The  deficiencies  that  have  been 
found  in  the  past  were  likely  caused  by  inequalities  in  the  mixing 
or  by  too  closely  calculating  the  formula  from  the  analyses  of  the 
materials  to  be  used  in  the  mixtures.  The  margin  of  profit,  per  ton 
of  mixed  goods,  has  been  relatively  small  for  several  years,  and  it 
is  safe  to  assume  that  during  the  past  year  on  account  of  the  high 
prices  and  scarcity  of  the  standard  raw  materials,  the  manufacturers 
could  not  afford  to  be  too  liberal  in  the  use  of  the  available  stock 
when  preparing  their  mixtures. 

The  purchaser  of  fertilizers  should  not  expect  to  receive  more 
plant-food  than  he  paid  for.  He  should,  however,  not  only  expect 
and  demand  the  amount  guaranteed,  but  it  should  be  derived  either 
from  standard  materials  or  from  materials  that  had  been  treated  in 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  13 

order  to  make  them  available.  There  is,  also,  a possibility  of  an 
error  having  been  made  in  the  shipment,  and  in  such  cases  there  is 
no  doubt  but  that  the  manufacturer  will  rectify  the  error,  but  it 
would  be  necessary  to  present  conclusive  evidence  that  an  error  had 
been  made  before  the  question  could  be  satisfactorily  settled. 

It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  make  these  purchases  in  a careful 
manner  in  order  that  the  money  will  be  wisely  invested,  and  the  only 
way  to  do  this  is  to  have  a positive  knowledge  of  the  composition 
of  the  material  secured. 

Quality  of  the  Plant-Food 

It  is  well  known  that  the  elements  of  plant-food  are  contained  in 
many  different  materials,  some  being  in  a good  form  to>  use  as  a 
fertilizer  while  others  are  not  much  better  than  an  inert  filler.  There 
are  also  several  materials  that  make  poor  fertilizers  in  their  original 
condition,  but  which  can  be  treated  at  the  factory  by  some  method 
in  order  to  make  the  plant-food  contained  available. 

On  account  of  this  condition  it  is  of  as  much  importance  to  know 
the  form  of  the  elements  in  a fertilizer  as  it  is  to  know  the  total 
quantity  of  nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid  and  potash  contained. 

Of  the  total  number  of  brands  of  mixed  fertilizer  examined,  308 
contained  a portion  of  the  total  nitrogen  content  in  the  form  of 
nitrates,  299  brands  contained  nitrogen  in  the  form  of  ammonia 
salts,  and  175  brands  contained  both  of  these  available  forms.  Tlie 
organic  nitrogen  was  present  in  two  forms,  soluble  and  insoluble. 
The  soluble  portion  is  considered  in  an  available  form,  but  the  value 
of  the  insoluble  portion  depends  largely  upon  its  source.  Determina- 
tions were  made  in  order  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the  insoluble 
nitrogen,  and  the  results  show  that  in  418  brands  this  form  of 
nitrogen  was  available  while  84  brands  contained  nitrogen  of  an  in- 
ferior quality.  Of  the  number  of  brands  containing  inferior  nitro- 
gen, 37  carried  an  excess  of  total  nitrogen  which  would  offset,  in 
part  at  least,  the  quantity  of  inferior  quality.  These  figures  com- 
pared with  those  of  last  year  will  show  that  a larger  number  of 
brands  this  year  contained  an  inferior  grade  of  organic  nitrogen 
than  was  found  during  the  previous  inspection.  This  is  a condition 
that  deserves  the  most  careful  attention. 


14 


Bulletin  334 


The  tabulations  given  in  the  reports  show  the  percentage  of  in- 
soluble nitrogen,  and  in  those  cases  where  it  was  found  to  be  of 
inferior  quality  special  attention  is  called  to  the  fact.  When  no 
reference  is  made  the  results  obtained  show  that  it  had  an  availability 
equal  to  some  of  the  standard  materials. 

There  are  three  forms  of  phosphoric  acid  usually  present  in  a 
fertilizer  and  they  are  designated  as  (1)  soluble  in  water,  (2)  soluble 
in  ammonium  citrate  and  (3)  insoluble.  The  portion  that  is  soluble 
in  water  is  more  widely  distributed  in  the  soil  than  either  of  the 
other  forms.  The  sum  of  the  portions  that  are  soluble  in  water  and 
soluble  in  ammonium  citrate  is  called  available  phosphoric  acid,'  and 
is  considered  to  be  readily  available  tO‘  the  growing  crops.  The 
value  of  the  insoluble  portion  depends  upon  its  source,  but  since  the 
greater  portion  of  the  phosphoric  acid  in  mixed  fertilizers  is  derived 
from  treated  phosphate  rock,  the  amount  that  is  insoluble  is  not  an 
important  item. 

The  potash  content  as  reported  is  water  soluble  and  is  readily 
available. 


Station's  Valuation  and  Selling  Price 

It  has  been  customary  at  this  Station  to  calculate  the  valuations 
of  the  fertilizers  examined,  but  for  reasons  given  on  a previous  page 
we  were  unable  to  make  any  valuations  this  year.  As  soon  as  con- 
ditions become  normal  these  valuations  will  be  given  in  order  that 
the  information  may  be  more  complete. 

For  years  we  have  presented  a tabulation  showing  the  average 
composition  and  selling  price  of  the  fertilizers  containing  nitrogen, 
phosphoric  acid  and  potash.  We  wish  to  keep  this  tabulation,  but 
during  the  past  three  years  it  has  not  been  complete  on  account  of 
the  valuation  question.  Table  5 will  show  the  average  composition 
of  this  class  of  fertilizers  for  the  past  ten  years  and  the  average 
selling  price  for  seven  years. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  15 

TABLE  5 

AVERAGE  COMI>OSITION  OF  FERTILIZERS  FOR  TEN  YEARS 


c 

<u 
bo 
— ' o 

‘C 

o 

o 

^ o- 

.5  o. 

2 o3 

‘rt  S.’S 

S S.’S 

O-tJ 

OJ3  U 

U 

S x;  u 

V 

Ph 

o 

c 

to 

_!  <U 

_c 

T1 

CO 

<s 

1909  

% 

2.57 

% 

9.63 

% 

7.39 

% 

2.24 

% 

6.51 

$21,58 

$30.12 

$8.54 

% 

39.6 

1910  

2.52 

9.60 

7.40 

2.20 

6.58 

22.38 

29.67 

7.29 

32.6 

1911  

2.63 

9.19 

7.42 

1.77 

6.72 

22.58 

29.98 

7.40 

32.8 

1912  

2.64 

9.17 

7.43 

1.74 

6.71 

22.54 

29.43 

6.89 

30.6 

1913  

2.63 

9.28 

7.74 

1.54 

7.13 

23.22 

29.37 

6.15 

20.9 

1914  

2.66 

9.24 

7.75 

1.49 

6..91 

22, .40 

29.51 

7.11 

24.1 

1915  

2.70 

9.78 

8.19 

1.59 

3.54 

22.11 

30.95 

8.84 

28.6 

1916  

2.39 

10.67 

8.98 

1..69 

1.39 

32.43 

1917  

2.63 

10.51 

8.73 

1.78 

1.83 

34.35 

1918  

2.31 

10.19 

8,53 

1.66 

1.96 

46.72 

Ground  Bone 

Forty-six  sainples  of  ground  bone  were  examined  during  the  in- 
spection and  the  results  are  tabulated  on  subsequent  pages. 

Table  6 will  give  the  average  composition  for  the  past  ten  years. 

TABLE  6 

AVERAGE  COMPOSITION  OF  GROUND  BONE  FOR  TEN  YEARS 


Fine 

Coarse 

Nitrogen 

Phosphoric 

Acid 

V aluation 

Selling  Price 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Average, 

1909.. 

63 

37 

2.98 

j 24.01 

$26.07 

$28.23 

4t 

1910.. 

66 

34 

2.77 

24.27 

28.70 

29.83 

4i 

1911.. 

65 

35 

2.64 

23.11 

27.31 

28.69 

44 

1912.. 

57 

43 

2.99 

22.89 

27.73 

31.12 

44 

1913.. 

60 

40 

2.83 

23.53 

27.62 

32.44 

44 

1914.. 

60 

40 

2.82 

23.24 

29.97 

32.40 

44 

1915.. 

57 

43 

2.96 

23.7*7 

29.24 

33.50 

44 

1916.. 

53 

47 

2.80 

23.80 

39.50 

44 

1917.. 

58 

42 

2.95 

24.28 

38.32 

44 

1918.. 

59 

41 

2.85 

24.84 

48.49 

Percentage 

Difference 


Summary  of  the  Results  Obtained  with  the  Mixed  Fertilizers  Examined  During  the  Inspection  of  1918 


Bulletin  334 


si 

rt  C 


<U  <43 

'll 

SO 

3 


s;u3ui3i3  33.iqx 


sjuauiaia  OMx 


IU3UI9I3  3UO 


qsBtlox 


ppV  ouoqdsoqx 


uaSoajxM 


^^saaiUEjBnr)  pagspeg 
XjppuEisqng  sajduxBg 
JO  jaqiuiTjiq 


s33juBaBn0  pagsTiBg 
S3[dUIBg 
JO  .laqiun^ 


paUtUXBXJJ  S9|dUIBg 
JO  J3qmn|\r 


paAiaoa^  spuBjg 
JO  jaqiun  s^ 


ro  fO  ^ <M 


to  . CC  T-(  ro 


to  ro  • • 


CO  T-i  f-M  CM 


CM  CM  . ‘CM 


CM  . t-h  lO 


0\  00  VOi— «VO«0'Oi— tr- 1 


to  O CM  ^ CM  r-i  'O 


0\  0\  \0  so^— «'*TtOTi— «iOC<lr-if— iro 


O CM  CM  »-i 


*T3  H-> 

S . 


^T3 

u ^ 


S s 

O 

..  I- 


‘ TJ 


pH  pH 


u ^ 


c ; ^ 
o 


^ t O 'ol  ’flj 


a o 

.B  'O 

cj  nj  CO  CO 

w u ^ PP  pq 


" S 
^ 'M 


S T3 

r;  c 


TJ  TJ  C 


u 

's  ^ 


^ 

w;z;§upq;z:^p 


P<!  > 

^ O 

t I 

Is  U 


V a V 

^ Q Z 


2 H 


O ^ 


o 

0 ^ 


< pH 


s -B 

o o 

c < 


O 1)  c 

s s h 

< << 


c .2 

O U 

c/1  « 

3 

tS  Ph 

a 

”1 
X 2 

c4 

hA  PP 


o <u 


6 c« 

U Ph 

Wi  ^ 

N C I 

.2  3 

o I 

t:  o 


>.  o 
n!  O 


bo  D3 

ea  ™ ^ 

<u  u 
js  n ^ 


Ph  C ’rt 


C O 

5 u 

T3 

C )-• 

H)  v 

S 


3 4>C7^" 
rt  J3  O O 3 

cq  H PP  PP  M 


Cos 
Sp^ 
6 pj  u 


o 

•3  "H  O 

£ 

5 « s 

Sow 

(/)  bo 

£</!$? 


u 

43  > 
O cn  •£ 

CJ  2 S 

22  « 
33  a 


d 

< cS 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  17 


(Nj  •fOWCq  • - CM 


f'5 


• — I —I  • <NJ  <M 


C^J  ro  CO  C'a 


rt-^rOCM  . •cg^^cOTfrotM'-(CMr-irocoxoCNlcOO\r-(r-i,-iO^CMCO  •fM'l-O'l 


OJ  OJ  ^ -H 


in  r-l  .CO 


tO>-l  .COrHrt.-l  .CM^  .CN1I-I.-IVO  .rtCO 


co'OCMvOrgr-i^coroc^r^-.^lvoc'ji^ 


CO  VO  CM  VO  CO 


2 12; 


I .s  M 

« o 3 
Ci  « § 


'y  -rl 

I c 

'q,  ° 


■ y .2  .iS 

« ® j3  _a 


-5 


p.. 
o _r 


03  rj  ‘i- 

S I ^ y 

pL,  tc  CQ 


X! 

PP  "o 
*0 
bo  Cfl 

c 

o .G 
uJ  CL, 


CU 


V ^ 

I ^ 


’S 

o 3 

^ := 
^ £ 


.2  ^ 


. ^ 
§ -- 


2i  & 

Cl,  c/) 


O ^ 
O 

^ s 

<U  G3 


T3  • 

iT 

o ^ 

a I 

• " "TJ 
Pl  fS 

CS  <u 

pp  Pi 


: Pm 


P.  .2 

J3 

*=2  ^ 


PP 


c -2 

'M  «.  1) 

42  c ^ 


-2^.S 


5 2 S 


M2  u) 


•73  "O 

P2  o o 

.°f  •=  o o 

tn  S pL,  ^ ^ 


PC  ^ M 


o « 

0 ^ s' 

1 s-s 
^ s i 

PP  W O 


o 

S Q * ^ 

« • OP 

rt  - M 

. J ^ « S 

^ *3  w 2 2 

^ rt  . c*’ 
c«  ^ .tj  5 

o c u -2 

JH  -3 

t-c  3 33  c/J  E 


3 MC 

'C  ^ 

bO  3 


*-  « U,  4> 


e"J 

MS, 


o o ^ ™ 

u g<3^ 
ic3  6 I 

^ PM  o 
^ -p:  u 

mP  qM  I-, 


U J;  PP  « S 


1^ 

P< 

£ s I h; 


2 t'i 


3P  C 

3 S 

c 4> 

3 +- 

« £ 

z < 


a n 

c PP 


2 i 

o ,Q 

M®  3 
u P< 


u. 

i<s 


>»  3 
P^  2 


"3  > 
rt  ^ 
U S 
Pi  W 


as 


w „ - 

•3  O P-i 

e.2  > 

V ,/)  V 

« J.^'E 


odd 

o8  0%) 


? rt 


c E .E  -T 


^ 5 ™ ^ & .1 
^ E c/5  t/:  cn  c/:  h 


over  0.2%  low  in  nitrogen,  0.3%  low  in  phosphoric  acid  and  potash. 


Summary  of  the  Results  Obtained  with  the  Mixed  Fertilizers  l.xamined  During  the  Inspection  of  1918 


18 


Bulletin  334 


Number  of  Samples 
Deficient  in — 

SJU3U13J3  33Jqj, 

1 ■ * * i 

SJU3UI3I3  OMJ^ 

JU3UI913  3UQ 

ID  CNJ  S']  fO  i-H  (N 

qsB;oj 

: : : : : 

Pj.')V  orioqdsoqj 

« ^ t-H  CNJ  - 1-1 

U3SOJ4[Iy[ 

IM  Cl  D — 1 . .CD 

,S33iUBaBui)  paysiiEg 
X[[BiiuBisqns  sajduiBg 
JO  jaquini^ 

tN*  rs.  CNJ  *r;  ro 

saaiiiBJBtiQ  payspBg 
sajdiuBg 
JO  jaquin^  ' 

CNj  rvj  1-*  fo  CO 

pauiuiBX^  s3[duiBg 

1 ■ JO  aaquin^ 

19 

IT 

31 

8 

17 

11 

6 

P3A}333^  spuBag 
JO  aaquin^Nj 

17 

9 

26 

8 

12 

11 

6 

Address 

1 

1 

Philadelphia,  Pa... 

Trenton,  N.  J 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 
New  York  City.  . . . 
Woodbury,  N.  J . . . 
Princeton  Jet.,  N.  J. 

Manufacturer 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co 

F.  W.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc 

J.  E.  Tygert  Co 

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co 

West  Jersey  Marl  & Transportation  Co 

J.  R.  Wyckoff 

20  Bulletin  334 

Commercial  Fertilizers 


Furnishing’  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Station  Number 

Manufactvirer  and  Brand 

Where  Sampled 

180272 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Bradley’s  Unicorn,  1916  

Belvidere  

180271 

Bradley’s  New  Method  Fertilizer,  1916  

Belvidere  

180341 

East  India  Unexecelled  Fertilizer,  1916  

Monmouth  Junction 

180276 

Wheeler’s  Wheat  Grower,  1916  

Lebanon  

180314 

Williams  & Clark’s  Special  Prolific  Crop  Producer 

Dayton  

18053 

Baltimore  Pulverizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

*Corn  and  Grain  Grower  

Mt.  Holly  

18787 

*Corn  and  Grain  Grower 

Mt.  Holly  

180319 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Baugh’s  General  Crop  Grower  for  All  Crops  

Dayton  

180288 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Bowker’s  Staple  Phosphate,  1916  

North  Branch  

180326 

Consumers  Chemical  Corporation,  New  York  City. 

Consumers  Pure-Sure  Plant  Food 

Titusville  

180298 

Listers  Agricultural  Chemical  Works,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Listers  Special  Crop  Producer,  1916  

Three  Bridges  

180300 

Listers  Ammoniated  Dissolved  Superphosphate,  1916 

Far  Hills 

180302 

Listers  Standard  Pure  Superphosphate  of  Lime,  1916 

Far  Hills  

180303 

Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Elkton,  Md. 

* Scott’s  Soluble  Phosphate,  12  and  2 

Baptistown 

180357 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Thomas’  4-8-4  

Westville  

18076 

F.  W.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

*1012  Mixture  

Beverly  

18246 

*1013  Mixture  

Blackwood  

Nitrogen  not  guaranteed. 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime 


21 


Commercial  Fertilizers 

Furnishing  Nitrogen,  Phosphoric  Acid  and  Potash 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

Potash 

1 

As  Nitrates  1 

1 

1 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble 

Organic  Matter 

As  Insoluble  | 

Organic  Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed  j 

Soluble  in  Water 

1 Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

1 Available 

Found 

Guaranteed 

1 

Found 

Guaranteed 

0.51 

0.28 

0.14 

0.72 

1.65 

1.65 

4.90 

4.68 

1.53 

11.11 

10.00 

9.58 

9.00 

1.02 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.16 

0.18 

0.39 

0.73 

0.82 

1.94 

5.58 

2.51 

10.03 

9.00 

7.52 

8.00 

0.91 

1.00 

0.51 

0.67 

0.22 

0.62 

2.02 

2.06 

4.90 

3.73 

2.01 

10.64 

9.00 

8.63 

8.00 

0.94 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.12 

0.21 

0.31 

0.64 

0.82 

3.02 

5 78 

2.24 

11.04 

9.00 

8.80 

8.00 

0.86 

1.00 

0.19 

0.14 

0.03 

0.35 

0.71 

0.82 

1.96 

5.77 

2.17 

9.90 

9.00 

7.73 

8.00 

0.82 

1.00 

1.06 

7.35 

2.67 

11.08 

12.00 

8.41 

12.00 

1.12 

1.00 

0.38 

7.33 

3.06 

10.77 

! 12.00 

7.71 

12.00 

0.98 

1.00 

0.18 

1 

i 0.26 

10.50 

0.94 

0.82 

5.54 

2.27 

1.46 

9.27 

8.00 

1 

7.81 

8.00 

1.25 

1.00 

Tr. 

0.11 

‘ 0.26 

0.35 

<1.72 

0.82 

1.40 

5.66 

2.58 

9.64 

, 9.00 

7.06 

8.00 

0.88 

1.00 

0.36 

0.19 

1 

0.51 

1.06 

0.82 

5.36 

.3.22 

1 

1.65 

10.23 

9.00 

8.58 

8.00 

1.02 

1.00 

0.29 

1 0.05 

1 

0.25 

0.29  1 

0.88 

0.«2 

7.16 

1.89 

1.46 

10.51 

9.00 

9.05 

8.00 

1.18 

1.00 

1 0.25 

0.61 

11.12 

1.98 

2.06 

6.72 

1.52 

2.30 

10.54 

9.00 

8.24 

8.00 

1.19 

1.00 

Tr. 

i 0.91 

0.57 

2 0.96 

2.44 

2.47 

7.94 

1.71 

1.84 

11.49 

10.00 

9.65 

9.00 

1.31 

1.00 

i 

1 

7.80 

4.39 

0.87 

13.06 

12.19 

12.00 

2.05 

2.00 

0.86 

1 

1.13 

0.39 

0.72 

3.10 

3.25 

2.40 

' 5.91 

2.08 

10.39 

8.50 

8.31 

1 8.00 

3.70 

4.00 

Tr. 

1 0.35 

0.13 

0.34 

0.82 

0.80 

7.53 

2.57 

10.90 

j 11.00 

8.33 

1 10.00 

*0.92 

1.00 

Tr. 

1 

1 

0.05 

0.17  i 

0.22 

1.90 

t 8.11 

1.19 

11.20 

i 11.00 

10.01 

10.00 

*0.79 

1.00 

* Potash  largely,  if  not  entirely,  from  sulphate. 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  amount 

of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


22 


Bulletin  334 

Commercial  Fertilizers 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


u 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


a 

C 

,2 


Where  Sampled 


in 


180269 

180273 

180277 

180312 

180313 

180315 

180263 

180266 

180267 

180268 

180281 

180317 

180318 

180283 

180284 

180285 

180286 

180283 

18029( 

180321, 
1 803211 
18032  ) 

18026  1 
180323 
180324 
18032  7 

1803.:  8 


American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Soluble  Grain  Mixture  

Bradley’s  Golden  Crop  Compound  

Bradley’s  Special  Superior  Compound,  Revised  

East  India  Special  Improved  Compound  

Read’s  Practical  Grain  Grower  

Williams  & Clark’s  Sterling  Mixture  

American  Fertilizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

American  Fish  Special  

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Baugh’s  The  Old  Stand-by  Dissolved  Animal  Base  

Baugh’s  Wheat  Fertilizer  for  Wheat  and  Grass 

Baugh’s  Half  and  Half  Mixture  

Baugh’s  Truckers’  Favorite  

Baugh’s  Corn  and  Oats  Fertilizer  

Baugh’s  Peninsula  Grain  Producer  

The  Berg  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Berg’s  Special  Bone  Manure  

Berg’s  Special  Wheat  Grower  

Berg’s  Animal  Meat  and  Bone  

Berg’s  Special  Truck  Grower  

Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  1%  

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  2%  

Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Original  Ammoniated  Dissolved  Phosphate,  19 J 6 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  XXV  Ammoniated  Phosphate,  1916 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  H.  G.  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  1916 

Consumers  Chemical  Corporation,  New  York  City. 

Consumers  Pure-Sure  Corn  and  Vegetable  (without  Potash)... 

Consumers  Pure-Sure  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  

Consumers  All  Crop  Compound  (without  Potash)  

Consumers  Pure-Sure  Corn  and  Grain  Bone  Phosphate 

;)as.  G.  Downward  Co.,  Coatesville,  P«. 

Ammoniated  Phosphate  


Belvidere  . . . 
Belvidere  . . . 
Neshanic  . . . . 
Hightstown  . 
Hightstown  . 
Dayton  

Salem  

Belle  Mead  . 
Belle  Mead  . 
Belle  Mead  . 
Pittstown  . . , 
Burlington  , , 
Dayton  

Flemington  . 
Flemington  . 
Flemington  . 
Flemington  , 

North  Branch 
Somerville  . . 

Hopewell  . . . 
Hopewell  . . . 
Hopewell  . . . 

Salem  

Titusville  . . . 
Titusville  ... 
Titusville  . . . 

'I'ren  ton  . . . , , 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime 

Commercial  Fertilizers 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


23 


Nitrogen 


Phosphoric  Acid 


As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble 

Organic  Matter 

As  Insoluble 

Organic  Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Found 

Sw 

Wailable 

'O 

•u 

c 

rt 

rt 

3 

o 

0.02 

0.29 

10.46 

0.77 

0.82 

6.06 

1 2.69 

1 

j 

i 1.21 

9.9C  j 

9.00 

8.75 

8.00 

0.78 

0.39 

0.23 

0.99 

2.39 

2.47 

6.86 

3.93 

1 1.14 

11.93  ! 

11.00 

10.79 

10.00 

0.53 

0.06 

0.20 

•0.70 

1.49 

1.65 

7.24 

2.97 

! 1.64 

11.85 

11.00 

10.21 

10.00 

0.61 

0.05 

0.21 

0.63 

1.50 

1.65 

5.84 

i 5.10 

! 1.33 

12.27 

1 11.00 

10.94 

10.00 

0.48 

0.11 

0.46 

0,60 

1.65 

1.65 

6.80 

i 3.59 

1 1.76 

12.15 

, 11.00 

10.39 

; 10.00 

0.46 

0.05 

0.33 

'0.63 

1,47 

1.65 

5.74 

! 4.64 

1 1.61 

11.99 

j 11.00 

10.38 

i 10.00 

0.02 

0.51 

1.10 

1.63 

1.65 

8.46 

3.64 

1.34 

13.44 

12.00 

12.10 

11.00 

0.93 

0.20 

'0.37 

1.50 

: 1.65 

9.22 

2.C3 

C.77 

12.02 

12.00 

11.25 

12.00 

0.56 

1 0.48 

'0.50 

1.54 

1.65 

8.00 

2.05 

1.18 

11.23 

10.00 

10.05 

10.00 

0.02 

i 0.28 

0.84 

1.14 

1.23 

3.64 

7.28 

7.46 

19.38 

19.00 

11.92 

12.00 

1.36 

0.35 

'0.59 

2.30 

2.47 

8.66 

1.67 

1.09 

11.42 

10.00 

10.33 

1 10.00 

0.60 

0.42 

'0.58 

1.60 

1.65 

8.06 

2.29 

1.43 

11.78 

10.00 

10.35 

10.00 



0.07 

i 0.47 

20.49 

1.03 

0.82 

6.60 

2.52 

0.81 

9.93 

1 9.00 

9.12 

9.00 

0.67 

0.03 

0.70 

1.39 

2.79  i 

2.00 

4.04  1 

4.17 

7.07 

15.28 

11.00 

8.21 

7.00 

Tr. 

0.03 

0.52 

21.12 

1.67 : 

1.65 

4.94 

2.76 

5.56 

13.26 

11.00 

7.70 

8.00 

1.36 

0.07 

0.53 

1.51 

3.47  ! 

3.30 

3.44 

5.64 

9.37 

18.45 

17.00 

9.08 

1.02 

0.04 

1 

0.46 

1.05 

2.57 

2.47 

6.50 

3.82 

5.02 

15.34 

10.32 

10.00 

0.03 

0.20 

2 0.65 

0.88 

0.82 

6.66 

3.84 

0.94 

11.44 

11.00 

10.50 

10.00 

0.53 

0.06 

0.22 

0.71 

1.52 

1.65 

6.86 

4.06 

1.45 

12.37 

11.00 

10.92 

10.00 

0.60 

i 

0.06 

0.18 

0.65 

1.49 

1.65 

5.80 

4.73 

1.53 

12.06 

11.00 

10.53 

10.00 

0.01 

0.22 

0.57 

0.80 

0.82 

6.84 

3.58 

1.13 

11.55 

11.00 

10.42 

10.00 

0.72 

0.34  i 

0.30 

0.85 

2.21 

2.47 

7.44 

3.01 

1.39 

11.84 

11.00 

10.45 

10.00 

1.56 

0.06 

0.89 

2.51 

2.47 

6.02 

4.04 

1.13 

11.19 

11.00 

10.06 

10.00 

0.08 

0.56 

1.01 

1.65 

1.65 

5.84  1 

4.69 

1.40 

11.93 

11.00 

10.53 

10.00 

0.03  i 

0.26 

0.61 

0.90 

0.82 

6.92 

3.52  i 

1.83  1 

12.27 

10.00 

10.44 

9.00 

0.28 

0.49 

1.08 

1.85 

1.65 

8.10  : 

4.62  1 

0.85  I 

13.57 

13.00 

12.72 

12.00 

0.01 

0.02 

0.15 

0,18 

0.82 

2.20  1 

5.32  1 

i.iol 

8.62  ' 

11.00 

7,52 

10.00 

^ Insoluble  erganic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

•Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  amount 


of  inferior  quality. 


24  Bulletin  334 


Commercial  Fertilizers 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


1 

Station  Number 

Manufacturer  and  Brand 

Where  Sampled 

180329 

180301 

Hendrickson  & Dilatush,  Robbinsville,  N.  J. 

Rnbbinsville  

Listers  Agricultural  Works,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Listers  Crescent  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  1916  

Far  Hills  

180275 

Mapes  Formula  & Peruvian  Guano  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Mapes’  General  Crop,  1916  Brand  

Chester  

180330 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J. 

Triangle  Brand  2-11  

Hightstown  

180334 

Albert  Nelson,  Allentown,  N.  J. 

Nelson’s  Special  R and  W Guano  

Nelsonville  

180332 

Nelson’s  Special  G and  G Guano 

Nelsonville  

180291 

Philadelphia  Guano  Works,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1918  Grain  Superphosphate  

Bound  Brook  

180363 

1918  Grain  Superphosphate  

Belle  Mead  

180349 

1918  Corn  and  Vegetable  Manure 

Monmouth  Junction 

180364 

1918  Corn  and  Vegetable  Manure 

Belle  Mead  

180350 

1918  Wheat  and  Grass  Grower 

Monmouth  Junction 

180295 

Rasin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  Guano  

North  Branch 

180297 

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  Mixture  

North  Branch 

180304 

Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Elkton,  Md. 

Scott’s  Ammoniated  Base  

Frenchtown  

180362 

South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange,  Woodstown,  N.  J. 

Exchange  Brand  Grain  and  Grass  Fertilizer 

Bridgeton  

180352 

Wheat  and  Grass  Fertilizer  

Woodstown  

180353 

Swift  & Co.,  Kearney,  N.  J. 

Holly  Special  Harrison  Formula  Fertilizer  

Mt.  Holly  

180354 

Swift’s  Special  Corn  Grower  

Mt.  Holly  

180355 

Holly  Special  Diamond  A Fertilizer  

Mt.  Holly  

180356 

Swift  Pure  Truck  and  Potato  Fertilizer  

Mt.  Holly  

180306 

I.  P.  Thomas  & Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Thomas’  Triumph  Manure  

Barbertown  

180307 

Raw  and  Acidulated  Bone 

Barbertown  

180339 

Trenton  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Bone  and  Tankage  

Pennington  

180310 

Special  Grain  

Lambervtille  

Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  25 


Commercial  Fertilizers 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  Acid 

1 

1 As  Nitrates 

As  Ammonia  Salts 

As  Soluble 

Organic  Matter 

As  Insoluble 

Organic  Matter 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Soluble  in  Water 

Soluble  in 

Ammonium  Citrate 

Insoluble 

Total  Found 

Total  Guaranteed 

Available 

Found 

Guaranteed 

Tr. 

0.06 

0.45 

1.07 

1.58 

1.65 

7.88 

3.35 

1.60 

12.83 

11.00 

11.23 

9.00 

0.13 

0.65 

0.72 

1.50 

1.65 

8.18 

2.39 

2.31 

12.88 

11.00 

10.57 

10.00 

0.78 

0.01 

0.21 

‘0.48 

1.48 

1.65 

0.80 

4.90 

6.20 

11.90 

10.00 

5.70 

8.00 

0.41 

0.05 

0.59 

0.73 

1.78 

1.64 

5.32 

4.97 

4.37 

14.66 

12.00 

10.29 

11.00 

0.03 

0.42 

0.27 

0.72 

0.82 

5.10 

4.05 

1.70 

10.85 

10.00 

9.15 

9.00 

1.00 

0.47 

0.43 

1.90 

j 

1.65 

8.24 

3.24 

1.96 

13.44 

11.00 

11.48 

10.00 

0.33 

0.23 

20.48 

1.04 

0.82 

8.80 

4.18 

1.00 

13.98 

13.00 

12.98 

12.00 

0.10 

0.25 

0.42 

0.77 

0.82 

9.60 

3.02 

0.51 

13.13 

13.00 

12.62 

12 . 00 

0.95 

0.09  j 

0.61 

1.65 

1.64 

8.18 

3.43 

0.87 

12.48 

11.00 

11.61 

10.00 

0.75 

0.48 

0.36 

1.59 

1.64 

7.92 

3.19 

0.78 

11.89 

11.00 

11.11 

10.00 

0.03 

0.19 

20.64 

0.86 

0.82 

2.62 

7.34 

1.50 

11.46 

10.00 

9.96 

9.00 

1 

0.07 

0.89 

0.77 

1.73 

1.65 

7.82 

4.20 

1.96 

13.98 

12.00 

12.02 

11.00 

0.04 

0.41 

‘0.30 

0.75 

0.82 

8.38 

2.34 

1.23 

11.95 

11.00 

10.72 

10.00 

Tr. 

0.33 

0.46 

0.96 

1.75 

1.65 

8.24 

3.95 

1.28 

13.47 

14.00 

12.19 

12.00 

0.37 

0.03 

0.37 

0.84 

1.61 

1.65 

6.84 

3.38 

3.90 

14.12 

10.50 

10.22 

10.00 

0.06 

0.58 

1 . 10 

1 . 74 

1.65 

5 . 74 

4.87 

5.92 

16.53 

10.61 

10.00 

0.77 

0.13 

0.31 

1.99 

3.20 

3.29 

5.14  i 

4.34 

0.72 

10.20 

10.00 

9.48 

10.00 

0.64. 

0.28 

0.11 

0.64 

1.67 

1.65 

6.94  i 

3.59 

0.69 

11.22 

10.00 

10.53 

10.00 

1.09 

0.07 

0.08 

1.25 

2.49 

2.47 

3.90 

3.95 

0.73 

8.58 

8.00 

7.85 

8.00 

1.19 

1.13 

0.47 

0.35 

3.14 

3.29 

3.34 

4.64 

1.12 

9.10 

10.00 

7.98 

10.00 

0.08 

0.34 

20.42 

0.84 

0.82 

7.56 

4.31 

1.37 

13.24 

10.50 

11.87 

10.00 

0.01 

0.03 

1.72 

1.76 

1.65 

3.46 

6.44 

9.90 

19.80 

17.00 

9.90 

0.15 

1.12 

'0.85 

2.12 

2.06 

2.44 

5.27 

6.28 

13.99 

9.00 

7.71 

8.00 

0.06 

0.75 

' 0.64 

1.45 

1.64 

3.66 

5.21 

1.70 

10.57 

10.00 

8.87 

9.00 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 

2 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  amount 

of  inferior  quality. 


26 


Bulletin  334 

Commercial  Fertilizers 

Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


c 

.2 


180335 

180336 

180338 

180359 

18126 

180361 

180367 

180366 


Manufacturer  and  Brand 


Where  Sampled 


F.  W.  Tunncll  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Grain  Manure  

1918  Fish  Manure  

1918  Raw  and  Acidulated  Animal  Compound  

Wheat  Grower  

’■^Pea  Manure  

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  for  All  Crops 
V.  C.  C.  Co.s  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  for  All  Crops 
V.  C.  C.  Co.’s  H.  G.  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate 


Titusville  . 
Titusville  . 
Titusville  . 
Bridgeton  . 
Beverly  . . . 

Jamesburg  , 
Belle  Mead 
Belle  Mead 


* Nitrogen  not  guaranteed. 


Humus  and  Manures 

180176 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Pulverized  Sheep  Manure  

18362 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md.,  and  Chrome,  N.  J„ 
Armour’s  Sheep  Manure  

180113 

M.  B.  Atkinson,  Bogota,  N.  J. 

Atkinson’s  Prepared  Humus  

180248 

Darling  & Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Darling’s  Sheep  Manure 

180198 

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fert.  & Chem.  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Godfrey’s  Sheep  Manure 

, . . . Plainfield  

18952 

Hudson  Carbon  Co.,  Ballston  Spa.  N.  Y. 

Davidage’s  Concentrated  Manure  

18882 

H.  B.  Kemp,  Long  Branch,  N.  J. 

Kemp’s  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure 

, . , , Long  Branch  

180132 

Natural  Guano  Co.,  Aurora,  Hi. 

Sheepshead  Brand  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure 

18876 

New  York  Stable  Manure  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

Diamond  Brand  Compost — Well  Rotted  Horse  Manure 

18307 

Swift  & Co.,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

1 Swift’s  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure  

27 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  L.ime 
Commercial  Fertilizers 
Furnishing  Nitrogen  and  Phosphoric  Acid 


Nitrogen 


Phosphoric  Acid 


0.11 

0.33 

•0.52 

0.96 

0.82 

9, 

,04 

0.86 

0.22 

'0.64 

1.72 

1.64 

7, 

,06 

0.55 

0.64 

0.85 

2.04 

1.64 

5, 

,18 

0.13 

0.04 

"0.53 

0.70 

0.82 

1, 

26 

0,06 

0.18 

0.30 

0,54 

5 

.28 

0.47 

0.14 

'0.94 

1 55 

1,65 

5, 

68 

0.08 

0.89 

0.72 

1,69 

1.65 

5 

.96 

0.09 

0.75 

1.16 

2.00 

1.65 

8 

.14 

3, 

61 

0 

,77 

13, 

,42 

13,00 

12. 

65 

' 12.00 

3, 

61 

0 

81 

11 , 

,48 

11.00 

10. 

67  1 

10.00 

5 

CO 

o 

5, 

,69 

15 

,95 

15,00 

10. 

26  i 

10.00 

8, 

73 

1 , 

,51 

11 , 

,50 

10.00 

9. 

99 

9.00 

6 

25 

1 

.09 

12 

,62 

11. 

53 

10.00 

L 

75 

2, 

, 16 

12, 

59 

11.00 

10. 

43 

10.00 

3, 

,96 

1. 

.73 

11, 

,65 

11.00 

9. 

92 

10.00 

4, 

.50 

1 

.59 

14, 

.23 

13.00 

12. 

64 

12.00 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  amount 
of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


Humus  and  Manures 


j 

1 

• • • • 1 

1 

0.49  4.86 

2.35 

2.06 

0.32 

1.49 

0.56 

2.37 

1.25 

1.81 

2.06 

V 

1.00 

1 

0.40  4.32 

1.72 

1.65 

0.06 

0.94 

0.10 

1.10 

1.00 

1.00 

3.95 

3.25 

0.22  12  0.80 

1.02 

1.25 

0.16 

0.15 

0.17 

0.48 

1.00 

0.31 

1 

0.45  ! 4.95 

2.40 

2.06 

0.46 

1.20 

0.96 

2.62 

1.00 

1.66 

1.32 

1.00 



0.29  ' 21.28 

1.57 

1.65 

0.32 

0.61 

0.12 

1.05 

1.00 

0.93 

3.39 

3.25 

0.59  ! ^0.75 

1.34 

1.00 

0.20 

j 

4.90 

7.53 

12.63 

1.00 

5.10 

1.68 

0.34  4.72 

2.06 

1.65 

0.28 

1.25 

0.15 

1.68 

1.00 

1.53 

2.70 

1.50 

0.46 

0.48  1 4.81 

2.75 

2.25 

1.70 

0.72 

0.11 

2.53 

1.25 

2.42 

1.00 

2.23 

1.50 

0.26  4.96 

2.22 

2.06 

0.54 

1.22 

0.46 

2.22 

1.79 

1.76 

1.50 

0.90 

1.00 

i 0.12  i 21.23 

1.35 

1.65 

a40 

1.01 

0.37 

1.78 

1.00 

1.41 

1.90 

1.50 

1 Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality.  Excess  of  total  nitrogen  partially  offsets  quan- 
tity of  inferior  quality. 

* Insoluble  organic  nitrogen  of  inferior  quality. 


Mechanical  . Phosphoric 

Analysis  Nitrogen  Acid 


28 


Bulletin  334 


punoj 


paajuBiBnQ 


punoj[ 


qouios/T 

UBqj  j3saB03 


qoui  OS/I 
UBqi J3UT J 


o 

CM 


O 

<r)  M-  M- 
ro  CM  CM 


O 

M- 

CM  CO 


liO 

CM  CO 


M-  CO 
CO 

CM  CO 


c c 


^ ffi 


C 

S c/] 


c 2 £ 

mow 
-a  bo  bo 

S 7^  JS 

ccj  "n  'u 

U pq  K 


c c 


w — 
C 

o « 

13  6 
c U 
o ^ 


p pq 


. P^ 


•2  I p 


^ c,  15 


J <0  - 


- O 


< o 

rt  a 

•C 

w 

B 

< 


(3 


K -C 


o o 
w ^ 

I* 

<A 

o n: 

£ 

u ^ 
c u 
o a 
PQ  o 

e 

I-. 

<< 


M Ah  o 


p & • 

PQ  PKi  ^ 


pq 


pq 


S ^ 


p 

o 


« V'. 


ro  u w 


^ 'i 

c 

13S 


^ N (2  oa 


"u  O « 
3 3 c/3  j2 

g g oa  a 


to  (0 
i J3 
bo  bo 
3 3 

ctj  ctJ 

pq  pq 


pq 


6 pi 

u t: 

M '■(JO 

w «!  >1 
w ^ 


(A 


rt  V 


M pq 

<0 

" s a a 


3 ® 

3 pq 

bb  £ 
<;  w 


jaqiunjvi  uopBjs 


CM 


00  (»  o 

O ^ 00 
CM  CO  CO 
00  00  00 


Philadelphia, 


29 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime 


in  csi 

CM  CO  CsJ 


00  tN. 

to  m 
<o  CM 


^ O 

■2  c .H 

u.  ^ 
O W O 
0 3 0 

s s ^ 


> > 


o oa 


o o ro: 

i;  § « c r 

•rj  rt  ui 

t;  -o  p<  o >, 

O C <u 

t,  a O.  <u  2 


i • 3 

— • o 

a 

K 


C Dh  Ch 


2 o 
^ c c 

cs  o o 

0 g pq 

^ 5 *0  *0 

o 0 C pv. 

c <?  p t3 
0*^0 
P3  .H  O o 


m 


c 

..  . - 3 

w di  i- 

(J  g w fO 

oj  tr  . 

'O  ^ 

3 <«•  (§ 


- O 

s ^ ^ 


05 


O O 


rt  :z: 


Ci!  O M 'o 

2 O <U  0 C 3 

O 3 .H  2 S 

cq  . Cl,  c C 

c/i  o 

3 

Ci,  « 


Ground  Bone 


Bulletin  334 


30 


paajuBJBny 


punoj^ 


paajuBJBnr) 


piinoj 


tj  c 

c 


ipui  OS/I 
ueq; jasjBo^ 


^oul OS/I 

UBqj  JauEI 


00 

00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

00 

00 

§ 

0 0 
0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 

<M 

CM 

Tf 

d d 

00 

00 

Ti- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO  0 

Cvl 

Cv) 

/~o 

CM 

CM 

CO  CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM  CM 

VO 

O 

CM 

VO 

0 

00  VO 

00 

CM 

vO 

VO 

00 

VO 

VO  CM 
vO  00 

tN.. 

00 

C30 

00  CO 

\3 

tv 

tv 

VO 

tv 

M- 

tv 

ro 

<M 

(M 

,-H 

tv  ON 

00 

10 

On 

in 

VO 

CO 

00 

0 M- 

tM 

<N 

CM 

<M 

-M 

^ CM 

CM 

(M 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

ro  CM 

tN, 

ro 

CM  CM 

VO 

tv 

CM 

t^ 

VO 

00 

VO 

VO  0 

Tf 

iO 

M- 

M- 

M- 

CO  00 

VO 

M- 

00 

M- 

CM 

M-  to 

CM 

CM 

CM 

<6  d 

CM 

0 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CM  to 

TT 

VO 

00 

ON 

Tt  CO 

CM 

0 

0 

0 

00 

00 

^ 0 

10 

CO 

M- 

CM 

lO 

VO  M- 

ON 

VO 

-r 

CO 

m 

Os 

On  cm 

CVJ 

10 

CM 

CM 

M- 

d 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

0 tr; 

00 

0 

tv 

00  CM 

0 

VO 

M- 

CM 

VO 

0 NO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO  M- 

10 

Tf 

ro 

CM 

CO  M- 

CM 

ON 

0 

CO 

CM  00 

On 

0 

VO 

NO 

00 

0 TT 

VO 

VO 

10 

00 

VO 

VO  ^ 

10 

»o 

10 

VO 

m 

m 

tv  in 

3 

0 

■M 

. 

3 

I 

3 

3 

0 

JJ 

3 

0 

0 

u 

0 

3 

0 

4; 

3 S 
-e  1 

3 

3 

-3 

3 

c 

3 

3 

0 

§3 

0 

bc 

3 

’> 

u 

a 

T) 

s 

bO 

3 

(n 

<u 

TJ 

0 

bfl 

_3 

S -=3 

CtJ 

pq 

T) 

m 

•3 

0 

B 

3 

0 

.2 

•5 

’5 

cd 

B 

u. 

^1 

0 

> 

"u 

bo 

3 

3 2 

U 

‘n 

pq 

& 

C/3 

§ 

iE 

<u 

Pi 

I) 

Pi 

i 

0^ 

0 

V 

W 

M 

M ^ 

jaquin^q  uoi;b;s 


IS. 

M 

c „ 

O rt 

ry)  ^ 

oa 

IS  ^ 


l-H  ro 

fj  <« 

CO 

=a  § g 

u pq  1- 

Hj  rt 

cS  o 

ya  .t;  i3  o 

§ 

^ ^ w 

3 


O <u 


u o 


.N 


§ o- 


c 

o o 

►-  - w M 

,v  ^ *73  W ^cd 

V ^ <u  V . V C 

B ^ C 

■ u o o c d2 

o rt  *5;  -3  c o u o 

CoiSEgrtcboC 
0^00^000 
pq^^fiQcopqpM 


■P  J3 

I fq 


m 

.1  »6 


g S 

S M 


c 

. 3 

O S 

J I 

.”3  £ 


u V O > q- 


tn  (O  to  tfl 


§«  . 
CA3  73  u 
^ C Ph 

oa  3 

„ o o 

2o  § 
5 M 


§ ca 
« ^ 
i 

c/3 


■5  ■?  '$  '%  '%  ’5  'S 

C/}.-mC/3C/}C/}C/3C/3C/3 


Ph 


s'- 

V 


I « 

CQ  3: 

-C 

V. 


V 3 
^ ^ 3 

3 U « g 

3 , n 

o ca  g pq 

^ 5 fe 

OOP 
O 3 o Pi 
« 2 O O 

t;  ^ 3 3 

H p4  pH 


Cf\  OOCJOOOlOro  0\  ^1-H  l^fTi 

C^  0\t^'0rct^ro  0\  rOTf  vora 

O Orxt^t^oocM  \o  'rr-r 

O ooooooDooO  cc  0000  oocc 

00  00— IT-I--I.-.CO  -H  rH-H  ^ 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime 


VO 

fO  fO 


cj 

^ (U 


(U  C 

^ w 

E J 

bo  rt" 


V 

6 S' 


’o 

^ u 


T3  "TS 
C C 

rt  rt 


O > > 


’ bn 
o bo 
C W 


si 


CJ  rt 


'■« 


G C 

> M 

oT  Ta 
-o  n 

G 


6 u 

rt 

O o3 


•|> 


o o 


rr  O 
ON  O 
Tt-  ir> 
00  00 


32 


Bulletin  334 


SUNDRY  MATERIALS. 

18058.  Flue  Dust,  Submitted  by  Wm.  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  J.  It  contained 
5.95  per  cent  of  water-soluble  potash. 

18102.  Potash  Salt.  Sampled  from  the  stock  of  the  Monmouth  County 
Farmers’  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J.  It  was  guaranteed  to  contain  26.00  per 
cent  of  potash,  and  it  was  found  to  contain  22.47  per  cent. 

18280.  Canadian  Wood  Ashes.  Submitted  by  Duke  Farms  Co.,  Somer- 
ville, N.  J.  It  contained  0.59  per  cent  of  total  phosphoric  acid  and  0.81  per 
cent  of  potash. 

18409.  Horn  Shavings,  Submitted  by  Garden  State  Orchard  Co.,  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.  The  sample  consisted  of  30  per  cent  of  horn  shavings  and  the 
balance  was  large  pieces  of  horn.  The  sample  contained  13.93  per  cent 
of  nitrogen. 

18621.  Ashes.  Submitted  by  M.  D.  Lyons,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  and  contained 
0.62  per  cent  of  potash. 

18624.  Kelp  Potash.  Submitted  by  the  Cedar  Crest  Orchard  and  Produce 
Co.,  Cedar  Crest,  N.  J.  It  contained  40.75  per  cent  of  potash. 

18670.  Alpha  Potash  Lime  Fertilizer.  Represented  the  stock  of  Eldredge 
& Phillips,  Cape  Ma}",  N.  J.,  and  was  sold  by  the  Alpha  Portland  Cement  Co., 
Easton,  Pa.  It  was  guaranteed  to  contain  2.50  per  cent  of  potash,  and  was 
found  to  contain  3'.04  per  cent  of  potash  and  28.48  per  cent  of  lime. 

18678.  Sewage  Residue.  Submitted  by  J.  C.  Stuart,  Beverly,  N.  J.  It 
contained  34.45  per  cent  of  water ; 0.94  per  cent  of  nitrogen ; 0.41  per  cent 
of  total  phosphoric  acid  and  0.31  per  cent  of  potash. 

18757.  Lime-Fertile.  Submitted  by  Theo.  Chamberlin,  East  Paterson,  N. 
J.,  and  was  manufactured  by  The  Fertile  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 

180035.  Lime-Fertile.  Taken  from  the  stock  of  Ellis  Tiger  Co.,  Gladstone, 
N.  J.,  and  was  manufactured  by  The  Fertile  Co.,  Cleveland,  O. 


Lime 

Magnesia 

1 Total  Phosphoric  Acid 

i*'ound 

Guarant’d 

Found 

Guarant’d 

Found 

Guarant’d 

% i 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Sample 

18757  

25.79  ' 

35.84 

15.45  ! 

4.96 

3.59 

3.00 

Sample 

180035  

27.13 

35.84 

16.98 

4.96 

2.55 

3.00 

18958.  Marl.  Submitted  by  Chas,  Fraser,  Marlton,  N.  J.,  and  contained 
6.41  per  cent  of  total  potash. 

180109.  Cocoanut  Peelings.  Submitted  by  Sharp  and  Street,  Merchant- 
ville,  N.  J.  The  analysis  showed  it  to  contain  the  following;  Water,  4.07 
per  cent;  oil,  43.01  per  cent;  nitrogen,  1.34  per  cent;  total  phosphoric  acid, 
0.46  per  cent,  and  total  potash,  0.42  per  cent. 

180216.  Phoslime.  Stock  of  Fanwood  Lumber  and  Supply  Co.,  Fan- 
wood,  N.  J.,  and  sold  by  Florida  Soft  Phosphate  and  Lime  Co.,  Ocala, 
Fla.  It  contained  21.96  per  cent  of  total  phosphoric  acid,  and  it  was  guar- 
anted  to  contain  22.00  per  cent. 

180369.  Nitrapo.  Submitted  by  W.  P.  Hunt,  Pennington,  N.  J.  The 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  33 

guarantee  attached  to  the  sample  was  nitrogen  15  per  cent  and  potash  15  per 
cent.  It  contained  nitrogen  14.13  per  cent  and  potash  20.39  per  cent. 

180370.  Bat  Manure.  Submitted  by  W.  P.  Hunt,  Pennington,  N.  J.  It 

contained  nitrogen  0.04  per  cent;  total  phosphoric  acid  0.06  per  cent  and 
Potash  1.15  per  cent. 

180371.  Horse  Manure.  Submitted  by  H.  J.  Appert  & Son,  Allen- 

dale, N.  J. 

180372.  Horse  Manure.  Submitted  by  H.  J.  Appert  & Son,  Allen- 

dale, N.  J, 


Sample  180371 

Sample  180372 

. 

% 

% 

Water  

42.67 

42.67 

Nitrogen  

0.56 

0.61 

Total  Phosphoric  Acid 

0.33 

0.24 

Potash  

0.50 

0.50 

180373.  Green  Sand  Marl.  Submitted  by  H.  R.  Cox,  Berlin,  N.  J.  It 
contained  4.96  per  cent  of  total  potash. 

180374.  Bat  Guano.  Submitted  by  The  Elizabeth  Nursery  Co.,  Eliza- 
beth, N.  J. 

180375.  Bat  Guano.  Submitted  by  The  Elizabeth  Nursery  Co.,  Eliza- 
beth, N.  J. 


Sample  180374 

Sample  180375 

% 

% 

Nitrogen  j 

0.96 

0.62 

Total  Phosphoric  Acid  

19.74 

10.55 

Potash  

0.60 

0.34 

AGRICULTURAL  LIME 

The  law  entitled  “An  Act  to  Regulate  the  Sale  of  Agricultural 
Lime”  became  effective  on  January  1,  1914.  The  essential  features 
of  this  law,  briefly  stated,  are : 

1.  Registration  of  the  brand  name  and  guarantees  that  will  be 
attached  to  the  materials  as  sold. 

2.  The  constituents  that  must  be  guaranteed. 

3.  The  name  and  address  of  the  party  responsible  for  the 
ma^terial. 

4.  The  official  inspection  of  the  materials  offered  for  sale. 

Registrations 

During  the  past  year  35  manufacturers  registered  70  different 
brands  of  agricultural  lime.  The  names  and  addresses  of  those 
who  have  registered  their  products  are : 


34 


Bulletin  334 


Acme  Lime  Co.,  Inc Baltimore,  Md. 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co New  York  City. 

American  Cyanamid  Co New  York  City. 

J.  E.  Baker  Co York,  Pa. 

S.  W.  Barrick  & Sons Woodsboro,  Md. 

Beaver  Dam  Marble  Co Cockeysville,  Md. 

Blair  Limestone  Co Martinsburg,  W.  Va. 

Carbo  Agricultural  Lime  Co Wilmington,  Del. 

Judson  Conover Matawan,  N.  J. 

G.  and  W.  H.  Corson Plymouth  Meeting, Pa. 

Dietrick  Bros Reading,  Pa. 

Edison  Pulverized  Limestone  Co New  Village,  N.  J. 

Fountain  Rock  Lime  Co Woodsboro,  Md. 

M.  J.  Grove  Lime  Co Lime  Kiln,  Md. 

J.  B.  King  & Co New  York  City. 

Knickenbocker  Lime  Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

E.  J.  Lavino  & Co Philadelphia,  Pa. 

LeGo re  Combination  Lime  Co LeGore,  Md. 

Weller  C.  Leigh Lebanon,  N.  J. 

John  Meehan  & Son Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Merion  Lime  and  Stone  Co Norristown,  Pa. 

Michigan  Limestone  and  Chemical  Co.,  Inc Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

M.  C.  Mulligan  & Son Clinton,  N.  J. 

E.  J.  Neighbour German  Valley,  N.  J. 

Palmer  Lime  and  Cement  Co New  York  City. 

Philadelphia  Lime  Co.,  Inc Philadelphia,  Pa. 

C.  T.  Russell Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

Security  Cement  and  Lime  Co Hagerstown,  Md. 

Standard  Lime  and  Stone  Co Baltimore,  Md. 

Standard  Lime  and  Stone  Co Buckeystown,  Md. 

Steacy  & Wilton  Co Wrightsville,  Pa. 

Tidewater  Portland  Cement  Co Baltimore,  Md. 

Todd  •&  Cordes  Peapack,  N.  J. 

Twining  & Large  Co Carpentersville,  N.  J. 

Charles  Warner  Co Wilmington,  Del. 

Inspection 

The  samples  of  lime  products  received  consisted  of  burned  limes, 
limestone,  and  refuse  products. 

The  results  secured  by  the  analyses  of  20  samples  are  given  in  the 
following  tabulation.  Several  other  unofficial  samples  were 
analyzed,  but  the  results  are  not  included  because  of  the  uncertainty 
as  to  whether  they  were  representative  of  the  products  claimed. 


Lime 


^ n rt 
4)  <U  ^ C 

S C ° 2 
S bo  -o 

KJ  1-1 

i-lkS^  rt 
<;  -i-'U 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime 


35 


p33;uBJBn9 


punoj 


Si 

HhJ 


psajuBJBn^ 


punoj 


paaiuBJBnQ 


puno^ 


31.00 

19.92 

1.91 

14.75 

1.91 

5.26 

7.66 

4.76 

1.76 

1.76 

2.19 

to 

to 

VO 

2.11 

1 1.62 

cq 

lO 

<M 

O 

fO 

1 

<o 

CM 

CO 

to  to 

o 

PO 

3.00 

<r 

PO 

CM 

CO 

2.00 

to 

VO 

C7S 
PO  PO 

! 1 

00 

^q  to 

U 

0\ 

X) 

ro 

O 

OO 

CM 

OS 

Cs 

PO 

PO 

U 

X. 

o o i 

M-  O 

H 

to 

o 

•o 

VO 

PM 

PM 

VO  VO 

*o 

'O 

H 

VO 

CM  OO 

•O  PO 

o 

to 

o 

VO 

O 

to 

to  to 

tO 

O 

o 

to 

o 

o 

CM 

•*?  to 

VO 

to 

CNJ 

Tt* 

VO 

CD  CD 

to  to 

to 

o 

VO 

M- 

o 

t-- 

CO 

VO 

OT  VO 

M-  to 

! 

1 47.37 

1 

55.93 

cq 

to 

to 

^44.04 

, 47.92 

57.42 

55.12 

46.42 

67.24 

, 48.90 

70.20 

X 

VO 

46.41 

53.59 

j^quin^  uopBis 


.S  T 


o 

o -g 

•s  8 

^ rt 

in  J 


.2  o 

C,c/2 

V 

S 

< 


o t>  e 
^ B o 

<«-;3  - 


i 6 I' 

"S  .s  c 

- t3  rt 
C rt  rt  '• 
O a IJ 
u 

^ r 
u) 

jy)  o 
“n 


m 


S w 

CO 

S-3 
u -n 


W) 

lU 

h-1 

6 

U 

V 

a 

ij 

il 

c 

T3  3 

iii  C 
^ U 


€)  O 

a a r 

'ij  j (3 

’T3  X)  <U 

(U  (U  p. 


rt 


a 
w 13 

a 'o 

tu  1^ 


G 

C 

(u  a 

oa 

rt  .a 

-S  ^ 

esi  .2  W ^ 


73  -G 

W K 


-G  'G  g 

<L)  (D  .G 

C G J 
iG  <G 

(U  w w G 


'G  G 
>.  I-H 

^ o‘ 
u ■ £ 

a y ^ 

2 <U  C 

M i a 

W)  j qi  ” 

G .fS  -G  1 

Jj  j5  rt  1-1 

^ 3 'O 
2 7j  i V- 
TJ  iS 


li 

S 1-5 


rW 

o 

G 

s ^ 


Q 

g" 

o 
bO 

•I  3 

s O J 

o K 

U o ^ 

u ’o  "2 

S w i 

^ 13  ^ 

^ i 

1^  G G 

,„•  U PL, 


u 


\n  po 

'T  00 
00  CO 


1-H  cq 

VO  ^s. 
OC  00 


Limestone 


36 


Bulletin  334 


C.5  c 

C3  t r 


cd  C 


p»3JUBJBn0 


punoj 


p33;UBJBn0 


puno^ 


p33jueaBn0 


punoj 


J3qran^  uoi:)b;S 


^ G 
c 

o . 


.:^  N > <« 

G -n  ^ ^ 


'S  - o 

3 U 

*u  ^ . 


e .ti 

n!  C 

G I 

u *0 
V Q 


3 ^ ^ in 
f?  O rt  w 
G «n  > 

Q G , . G 


U O 


G^ 

a 

nJ 

CO' 


CJ 

O 

C 


w 

H 

G 

G 

G 

C 

G 

fG 

> 

pq 


hJ 


18717  ^By-Product  from  Acetylene  Gas  Three  Bridges  38.11  Tr 21.70 

180042  2By-Product  from  Acetylene  Gas  Trenton  36.23  Tr 18.86 

18758  *By-Product  from  Presto-Lite  Elizabeth  40.70  Tr 16.01 


Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  37 
Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October,  31,  1918 


Guaranteed  Minimum  Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equivalent 

to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phosphoric 

Acid 

1 

Water-Soluble  j 

Potash  j 

Active  Chemical  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

1 

Semper  Tankage  Prepared  

1.23 

1.50 

3.00 

2.00 

Semper  Soil  Dresser  

1.64 

2.00 

3.50 

3.00 

Semper  Peerless  

0.82 

! 1.00 

11.00 

! 10.00 

1.00 

Semper  Vital  

1.64 

: 2.00 

3.50 

3.00 

1.00 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

j 

i 

Star  Phosphate  with  Potash  

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Alkaline  Grain  Mixture  

12.00 

11.00 

2.00 

Peerless  Special  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

New  Jersey  Truck  Manure  

3.29 

4.00 

10.50 

9.50 

2.00 

Moro-Phillips  C.  & G.  Complete  Fertilizer,  1916.  . | 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Potomac  Golden  Harvest,  Revised  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Potomac  Top  Dressing  Manure  

5.76 

7.00 

7.00  1 

6.00 

Potomac  Complete  Manure,  1916  .' 

1.65  ' 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Potomac  General  Crop  Compound,  1916  

2.47  i 

3.00 

10.00  1 

9.00 

1.00 

Potomac  Golden  Potato  Manure  

3.29  1 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Potomac  Odorless  Lawn  Manure 

3.91  ! 

4.75 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Potomac  Special  Truck  Manure,  1916  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Harvest  Queen,  1918  

0.82 

1.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Sweet  Potato,  1918  

’ 1.23 

1.50 

9.50 

9.00 

Blood  and  Meat,  1918  

1.65 

2.00 

10.50  : 

10.00 

Armours  3J<i-12-0  

2.88 

3.50 

12.50  ; 

12.00 

Sterling  Potato,  1918  

0.82 

1.00 

7.50  i 

7.00 

1.00 

Sheep  Manure  

1.65 

2.00 

1.00 

3.25 

Baltimore  Pulverizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Practical  Fertilizer  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Baugh  & Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Baugh’s  Pure  Steamed  Bone  

1.65 

2.00 

*25.00 

Baugh’s  Wheat  Fertlizer  for  Wheat  and  Grass.  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Berg  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

I 

Ground  Tankage  

4.53 

5.50 

11.64 

Berg’s  Special  Wheat  Grower  

1.65  ' 

2.00 

11.00 

8.00 

Berg’s  Special  Crop  Grower  

1.65 

2.00 

14.00 

10.00 

Berg’s  Special  Bone  Manure  Without  Potash.... 

2.00  ; 

2.43 

11.00 

7.00 

Berg’s  Special  Truck  Grower 

2.47 

3.00 

14.00 

10.00 

Berger  Bros.,  Easton,  Pa. 

Peerless  Phosphate,  1916  

0.82  1 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Lehigh  Super  Phosphate,  1916  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Bowker’s  Fresh  Ground  Bone  

2.47  : 

3.00 

22.88 

Bowker’s  Corn  Phosphate,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Louis  Burk,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Tankage  

1 

3.60  ! 

I 4.38 

19.90 

12.71 

38  Bulletin  334 

% 

Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending  Oct.  31,  1918 — Cont. 


Guaranteed  Minimum  Analysis 


Central  Chemical  Co.,  Hagerstown,  Md. 

C.  C.  C.  Fine  Ground  Bone  

2.87 

3.50 

23.00 

16.00 

C.  C.  C Truck  Special  

2.50 

3.00 



10.00 

C.  C.  C.  Potato  Grower  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

C.  C.  C.  Truckers  Pride  

4.11 

5.00 

10.00 

C.  C.  C.  Truckers  Potash  Special  

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Chamberlin  & Barclay,  Cranbury,  N.  J. 

Chamberlin  & Barclay’s  1918  Special  

3.28 

4.00 

8.00 

6.00 

3.00 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Magic  Steamed  Bone  Meal 

2.47 

3.00 

23 . 00 

Magic  Brand  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure 

1.85 

2.25 

1.50 

1.43 

1.25 

E.  D.  Chittenden  Co.,  Bridgeport,  Conn. 

Chittenden’s  Vegetable  and  Onion  Grower  without 

Potash  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.0-C 

Chittenden’s  Potato  Special  without  Potash 

3.30 

4.00 

11.0(1 

10.00 

Chittenden’s  High  Grade  Potato  without  Potash.  . 

4.10 

5.00 

11.0(( 

10.00 

Chittenden’s  Potato  Special  with  3 per  cent  Potash 

3.30 

4.00 

9.01) 

8.00 

3.00 

Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Country  Club  (Regular  U.  S.  Pat.  Off.) 

5.76 

7.00 

4.0\' 

3.00 

1.00 

Golf  and  Lawn  Fertilizer,  1916,  Brand  A,  for  Put- 

ting Greens  

Columbia  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Columbia  Phosphate  and  Potash  Mixture  



10.50 

10.00 

1.00 

Columbia  Reflex  Ammoniated  Superphosphate.... 

0.82 

1.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Columbia  Vitalic  Ammoniated  Superphosphate.  ... 

1.65 

2.00 

8.50 

8.00 

J.  S.  Collins  & Son,  Inc.,  Moorestown,  N.  J. 

V C Special  3-10  Fertilizer  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

V C Special  4-10  Fertilizer  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Armour’s  Sheep  Manure  Fertilizer  

1.65 

2.00 

1.00 

3.00 

Downing  Phosphate  Co.,  Brunswick,  Ga. 

“Liberty  Brand’’  Pulverized  Untreated  Phosphate. 

31.50 

Fertile  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Nitro-Fertile  

2.00 

2.40 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

J.  Fischer  & Co.,  Keyport,  N.  J. 

Nitrate  of  Soda  Sweepings  (Sifted)  

10.00 

Nitrate  of  Soda  Sweepings 

5.00 

Godfrey  Co-op.  Fertilizer  & Chemical  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

! 

Godfrey’s  Sheep  Manure  

1 .65 

2.00 

1.00 

3.25 

G.  G.  Green,  Jr.,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

Pure  Ground  Bone  

2.47 

3.00 

22.90 

Joseph  Gubbins, .Philadelphia,  Pa. 

“Liberty’’  Commercial  Fertilizer  No.  2 

2.22 

2.70 

“Liberty’’  Commercial  Fertilizer  No.  1 

i 4.49 

5.45 

1.31 

Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  39 
Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending  Oct.  31,  1918 — Cent. 


Ciuaranteed 

Minimum  Analysis 

c 

o 

JZ 

*u 

a 

'5 

cr  rt 
Wg 

o 

c, 

c/} 

o 

jp 

Ch 

3 

c S 

<u  P 
o S 

o 

s 

2 

3 

rt 

3 

C/) 

X! 

o 

u 

i <1 

3.'H 

o ^ 

•4-»  C3 

22 

0*0 

H<1 

> y 

Hendrickson  & Dilatush,  Robbinsville,  N.  J. 

Steam  Bone  

2.47 

3.00 

22.00 

Grain  Grass  Manure  No.  2 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

9.00 

H.  G.  Grain  Grower  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

9.00 

Ferris  Grass  Manure  No.  

7.38 

9.00 

7.00 

5.00 

Heritage  & Bro.,  Mullica  Hill,  N.  J. 

Animal  Tankage  

4.90 

6.00 

12.00 

Hubbard  Fertilizer  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Hubbard’s  Farmers’  1 X L 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

; 8.00 

2.00 

Hutchinson  & Rue,  Windsor,  N^.  J. 

Corn  Mixture  1^-15  

1.23 

1.50 

16.00 

15.00 

International  Agricultural  Corporation,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Buffalo  Sixteen  Percent  Acid  Phosphate  

17.00 

16.00 

Buffalo  Special  Mixture  No.  2 

15.00 

14.00 

2.00 

Buffalo  Special  Mixture  No.  1 

1.60 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

2.00 

Keystone  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1918  Keystone  Sweet  Potato  Manure  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

A.  R.  Kohler,  Westville,  N.  J. 

King  Crab  Meal  

9.88 

12.  Off 

William  Lancaster,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Grange  General  Manure  

0.82 

1.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Grange  E Brand  Potato  Manure  

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Grange  Superior  Fish  Manure  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Locke  & Black,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

Bone  Tankage  

3.70 

4.50 

20.00 

Ground  Tankage  

5.14 

6.25 

8.00 

Ground  Tankage  

6.25 

7.60 

11.00 

Ground  Tankage  

6.58 

8.00 

11.00 

Martin  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Martin’s  Nitrate  of  Soda  

15.22 

18.50 

Martin’s  Acid  Phosphate  16  per  cent  

17.00 

16.00 

Martin’s  Tankage  6 per  cent  

4.94 

6.00 

10.00 

Martin’s  Tankage  8 per  cent  

6.58 

8.  Off 

10.00 

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  2-8  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  2-10  

, 1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10'.  00 

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  3-8  

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00  

Martin’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  4-10  

! 3.30 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00  

Martin’s  Two  Eight  and  Two  2-8-2  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2 . 00 

Martin’s  Three  Eight  and  Three  3-8-3  

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Martin’s  Four  Eight  and  Two  4-8-2  

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

, 2 . 00 

40  Bulletin  334 

Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending  Oct.  31, 1918 — Cont. 


Guaranteed  Minimum  Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equivalent 

to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Water-Soluble 

Potash 

Monmouth  County  Farmers  Exchange,  Freehold,  N.  J. 

Ground  Dried  Blood  

12.96 

15.75 

Ground  Tankage  

8.02 

9.75 

7.00 

Triangle  Brand  1-12-0  

0.82 

1.00 

13.011 

12.00 

Triangle  Brand  2-11-0  

1.64 

2.00 

12.01) 

11.00 

Triangle  Brand  6-5-10-0 

5.35 

6.50 

10.00 

10.00 

Triangle  Brand  8-6-0  

6.58 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

Triangle  Brand  3-8-2  

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Triangle  Brand  3-10-3  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Joseph  R.  Moore,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

9.88 

12.00 

J,  R.  Moore’s  5^4  per  cent  Tankage 

4.53 

5.50 

15.00 

J.  R.  Moore’s  7 per  cent  Tankage  

5.76 

7.00 

3.00 

J.  R.  Moore’s  8 per  cent  Tankage  

6.59 

8.00 

5.00 

4.00 

National  Plant  Food  Co.,  Pensacola,  Fla. 

Red  Snapper  

5.00 

6.07 

12.00 

4.00 

1.25 

Nitrate  Agencies  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

N.  A.  C.  Brand  Nitrapo  

15.00 

18.25 

Ground  Dried  Fish 

8.22 

10.00 

5.57 

Philadelphia  Guano  Works,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

1918  Strawberry  Mixture  

3.30 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Potash  Grain  Manure  

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Reading  Chemical  Co.,  Reading,  Penn. 

High  Grade  Phosphate  

17.00 

16.00 

Royal  Fish  Guano 

1.03 

1.25 

13.00 

12.00 

Reading  Soil  Builder  

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Pennant  Winner  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Nitrate  of  Soda 

15.00 

18.24 

Royster’s  Fine  Ground  Bone  Meal 

2.47 

3.00 

22.90 

Royster’s  Pure  Raw  Bone  Meal  

3.70 

4.50 

21.50 

Royster’s  Grain  and  Grass  Special  

Royster’s  Phosphate  and  Potash  Mixture  

0.82 

1.00 

8.50 

12.50 

8.00 

12.00 

2.00 

Schanck,  Hutchinson  & Field,  Hightstown,  N.  J. 

S.  H.  & F.  Corn  Mixture  2-8-0  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

S.  H.  & F.  Grain  Mixture  2-8-0  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

S.  H.  & F.  Potato  and  Truck  Manure  4-8-0 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

S.  H.  & F.  Potato  and  Vegetable  Compound  4-10-0 

3 29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Special  Fish  Mixture  for  Potatoes  with  2 per  ceni 

Potash  4-6-2  

3.29 

4.00 

7.00 

6.00 

2.00 

Davidson’s  Fish  and  Potato  Mixture  for  Potatoes 

4-8-3  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Analyses  of  Fertilizers,  Ground  Bone  and  Lime  41 
Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending  Oct.  31, 1918 — ^Cont. 


Guaranteed  Minimum  Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equivalent 

to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Water-Soluble 

Potash 

I.  Serata  & Sons,  Bridgeton,  N.  J. 

Nitrate  of  Soda  

15.58 

19.00 

Truck  Fertilizer  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Potato  Fertilizer  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Top  Dressing  Fertilizer  

4.12 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

M.  L.  Shoemaker  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Pure  Raw  Bone  Meal  

3.30 

4.00 

20.00 

“Swift-Sure”  Bone  Meal  

4.53 

5.50 

20.00 

“Swift-Sure”  Guano  for  Tomatoes,  Truck  and  Corn 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

8.00 

“Swift-Sure”  Phosphate  for  Tobacco  and  General 

Use  ! 

3.30 

4.00 

11.00 

9.00 

South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange,  Woodstown,  N.  J. 

South  Jersey  Farmers  Exchange  Brand  4-8-3  .... 

3.28 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Special  Fertilizers  for  Second  Crop  Cobblers 

3.48 

4.25 

11.00 

10.00 

2.25 

Standard  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Standard’s  2-10  

1.64 

2.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Prize  Winner  Potato 

Manure  

2.46 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Mammoth  Potato  Manure 

3.28 

4.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Standard’s  5-10  

4.00 

5.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Standard’s  4-8-2  

3.20 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

2.00 

Standard’s  4-8-3  • 

3.28 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Special  Potato  Manure. 

3.28 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Swift  & Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Swift’s  Jersey  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Swift’s  General  Crop  Fertilizer  

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

9.00 

Swift’s  Three  Ten  Naught  Brand  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Swift’s  Special  Pride  of  Jersey  Fertilizer  

4.11 

5.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Swift’s  Special  Phosphate  and  Potash 

10.00 

10.00 

2.00 

Swift’s  Wheat  Grower  Phosphate  and  Potash 

12.00 

12.00 

2.00 

Swift’s  Baltimore  Formula  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Swift’s  Four  Ten  Three  Brand  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Swift  & Co.,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

Swift’s  Corn  Grower  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Swift’s  Special  Fertilizer  for  Corn  

2.88 

3.50 

12.00 

12.00 

Swift’s  Special  Fertilizer  for  Grass  

6.58 

8.00 

6.00 

6.00 

Taylor  Bros.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

Taylor  Brothers’  Superior  Ammoniated  Super 

phate  

1.65 

2.0CI 

8.00 

8.0(1 

1.00 

Taylor  Provision  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

John  Taylor’s  High  Grade  Potato  Manure  No.  1 . . 

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

42  Bulletin  334 


Brands  Registered  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending  Oct.  31,  1918 — Cent 


Guaranteed 

Minimum  Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equivalent 

to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Water-Soluble 

Potash 

F.  \V.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Special  Mixtures  in  accordance  with  ruling  of 

. 

State  Chemist — 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  15  per  cent  

12.34 

15.00 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  18  per  cent 

14.81 

18.00 

Pea  Manure  

11.00 

10.00 

1918  Corn  Mixture 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1918  General  Crop  Grower  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Burlington  Truck  Manure  

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

High  Grade  Fish  and  Truck  Guano  

3.30 

4.00  j 

11.00 

10.00 

1918  Truckers’  Pride  

3.30 

4.00  ' 

11.00 

10.00 

1918  Jersey  Special  

3.71 

4:50 

10.00 

9.00 

7-8  

5.77 

7.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1918  10  per  cent  Top  Dresser  

8.23 

10.00 

4.00 

Potash  Grain  Grower  

0.82 

1,00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Burlington  Countv  Potato  Manure  

3.30 

4.00 

8.00 

j 7.00 

1.00 

Excelsior  Potato  Manure  

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4.00 

Jacob  R.  Wyckoff,  Princeton  Junction,  N.  J. 

Wyckofif’s  Special  Corn  Grower  

1.65 

2.00 

0 

0 

d 

10.00 

Wyckoff’s  Clay  Soil  Special  

1.65 

2.00 

12.00 

12.00 

Wyckoff’s  Tliiee  Ten  Naught  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Wyckoff’s  Special  Formula  

3.28 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Wyckoff’s  Special  Flarrison  Formula  

3.28 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Wyckoff’s  Special  Potato  Fertilizer  

3.28 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Wyckoff’s  Market  Garden  IManure  

3.28 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Wyckoff’s  Special  Potato  Manure  

3.28 

4.00 

1 8.00 

8.00 

5.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 


NEW  JERSEY 

AGRICULTURAL 


BULLETIN  335 


New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


NEW  JERSEY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATIONS* 

NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J, 


STATE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1880 
BOARD  OF  MANAGERS 


His  Excellency  WALTER  B.  EDGE,  LL.D..  . .Trenton,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey 

W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.  D New  Brunswick,  President  of  the  State  Agricultural  College 

JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D Professor  of  Agriculture  of  the  State  Agricultural  College 


County 
Atlantic 
Bergen 
Burlington 
Camden 
Cape  May 
Cumberland 
Essex 
Gloucester 
Hudson 
Hunterdon 
Mercer 


Name 

William  A.  Blair 
Arthur  Lozier 
R.  R.  Lippincott 
Ephraim  T.  Gill 
Chas.  Vanaman 
Chas.P.  Seabrook 
Zenos  G.  Crane 
Wilbur  Beckett 
D.  Bahrenburg 
Egbert  T.  Bush 
J.  T.  Allinson 


Address 
Elwood 
Ridgewood 
Vincentown 
Haddonfield 
Dias  Creek 
Bridgeton 
Caldwell 
Swedesboro 
Union  Hill 
Stockton 
Yardville 


County 

Middlesex 

Monmouth 

Morris 

Ocean 

Passaic 

Salem 

Somerset 

Sussex 

Union 

Warren 


STAFF 


Name  Address 

James  Neilson  New  Bruns’k 
William  H.  Reid  Tennent 
John  C.  Welsh  Ger’n  Valley 
James  E.  Otis  Tuckerton 
Isaac  A.  Serven  Clifton 
Charles  R.  Hires  Salem 
Joseph  Larocque  Bemardsville 
R.  V.  Armstrong  Augusta 
John  Z.  Hatfield  Scotch  Plains 
James  I.  Cooke  Delaware 


Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D 

Frank  G.  Helyar,  B.Sc 

Irving  E.  Quackenboss 

Frank  App,  B.Sc Agronomist 

Irving  L.  Owen,  B.  Sc. Associate  Agronomist 
J.  Marshall  Hunter,  B.Sc., 

Animal  Husbandman 

Chakles  S.  Cathcart,  M.Sc Chemist 

Ralph  L.  Willis,  B.Sc.  . .Assistant  Chemist 

Archie  C.  Wark Laboratory  Assistant 

W.  Andrew  Cray.  . . .Sampler  and  Assistant 
William  M.  Regan,  A.  M. 

Dairy  Husbandman 

Forrest  Button,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman 
John  Hill,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Dairy  Husbandman 
Walter  R.  Robbers, 

Superintendent  of  Advanced  Registry 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist 

Chas.  S.  Beckwith,  B.Sc. Asst.  Entomologist 
Mitchell  Carroll,  B.Sc.. Asst.  Entomologist 
Vincent  J.  Breazeale, 

Foreman,  Vegetable  Growing 
Arthur  J.  Farley,  B.Sc., 

Acting  Horticulturist 


Director. 

Associate  in  Station  Administration. 

Chief  Clerk,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 
Charles  H.  Connors,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Experimental  Horticulture 
William  Schieferstein  . . Orchard  Foreman 
Lyman  G.  Schermerpiorn,  B.Sc., 

Specialist  in  Vegetable  Studies 

H.  M.  Biekart  Florist 

Harry  R.  Lewis,  M.Agr., 

Poultry  Husbandman 
Willard  C.  Thompson,  B.Sc., 

Assistant  Poultry  Husbandman 
Ralston  R.  Hannas,  M.Sc., 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Research 
George  H.  Pound,  B.Sc..  . .Poultry  Assistant 

Morris  Siegel  Poultry  Foreman 

Elmer  H.  Wene Poultry  Foreman 

John  P.  Helyar,  M.Sc Seed  Analyst 

Jessie  G.  Fiske,  PH.B...Asst.  Seed  Analyst 

Carl  R.  Woodward,  B.Sc Editor 

Ingrid  C.  Nelson,  A.B Assistant  Editor 

Hazel  H.  Moran Assistant  Librarian 

Leslie  E.  Hazen,  M.  E., 

In  Charge  of  Rural  Engineering 


AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  STATION.  ESTABLISHED  1888 
BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


The  Board  of  Trustees  of  Rutgers  College  in  New  Jersey 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BOARD 


W.  H.  S.  DEMAREST,  D.  D.,  President  of  Rutgers  College,  Chairman New  Brunswick 

WILLIAM  H.  LEUPP  New  Brunswick 

JAMES  NEILSON  New  Brunswick 

WILLIAM  S.  MYERS  New  York  City 

JOSEPH  S.  FRELINGHUYSEN  Raritan 


STAFF 


JACOB  G.  LIPMAN,  Ph.D 

HENRY  P.  SCHNEEWEISS,  A.B.. 

John  W.  Shive,  Ph.D.  . . .Plant  Physiologist 
Earle  .1.  Owen,  M.Sc.  ..  Assistant  in  Botany 
Frederick  W.  Roberts,  A.M., 

Assistant  in  Plant  Breeding 

.Mathilde  Groth Laboratory  Aid 

Thomas  J.  Headlee,  Ph.D Entomologist 

Ai.vah  Peterson,  Ph.D..  Asst.  Entomologist 
Augusta  E.  Meske.  .Stenographer  and  Clerk 
.Mklville  T.  Cook,  Ph.D..  .Plant  Pathologist 
WiDi-iAM  H.  Martin,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Plant  Pathologist 


Director. 

Chief  Clerk. 

Gertrude  E.  Macpherson,  A.B., 

Research  Assistant  in  Plant  Pathology 
Jacob  G.  Lipman,  Ph.D., 

Soil  Chemist  and  Bacteriologist 
Augustine  W.  Blair,  A.M., 

Associate  Soil  Chemist 
Selman  a.  Waksman,  Ph.D., 

Microbiologist,  Soil  Research 

Jacob  .Ioffe,  B.Sc Research  Assistant 

Cyrus  Witmer, 

Field  and  Laboratory  Assistant 


Staff  list  revised  to  January  1,  1919. 


NEW  JERSEY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
ORGANIZED  1912 

AND 

NEW  JERSEY  STATE  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE 
DIVISION  OF  EXTENSION  IN  AGRICULTURE  AND  HOME  ECONOMICS 

ORGANIZED  1914 


Lons  A.  Clinton,  M.Sc.,  Director. 

Mes.  Feank  App,  Acting  State  Leader  of 
Home  Demonstration. 

ViCTOE  G.  Aubey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Poultry 
Husbandry. 

John  W.  Baetlett,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Dairy 
Husbandry. 

M.  A.  Blake,  B.Sc.,  Acting  State  Superin- 
tendent and  State  Leader  of  Farm  Dem- 
onstration. 

Roscoe  W.  DeBaun,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Mar- 
ket Gardening. 

J.  B.  R.  Dickey,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Soil  Fer- 
tility and  Agronomy. 


Maejoey  Eells,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent. 

Edna  Gklick,  Home  Demonstration  Agent. 

Aethue  M.  Hulbeet,  State  Leader  of  Boys’ 
and  Girls’  Club  Work. 

Ethel  Jones,  M.A.,  Asst.  State  Club  Leader. 

William  F.  Knowles,  A.B.,  Assistant  State 
Club  Leader. 

William  M.  McIntyee,  Assistant  Specialist, 
Fruit  Growing. 

Chaeles  H.  Nissley,  B.Sc.,  Specialist,  Fruit 
and  Vegetable  Growing. 

Cael  R.  Woodwaed,  B.Sc.,  Editor. 

Ingeid  C.  Nelson,  A.B.,  Assistant  Editor. 


H.  E.  Baldingee,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Sussex  County. 

William  P.  Beodie,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent,  Salem  County. 

Feank  A.  Caeroll,  Demonstrator  for  Mercer 
County. 

Elwood  L.  Chase,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Gloucester  County. 

Lauea  V.  Clark,  A.B.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Newark. 

Louis  A.  Cooley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Ocean  County. 

Herbert  R.  Cox,  M.S.A.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Camden  County. 

Josephine  C.  Cramer,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Middlesex  County. 

Lee  W.  Crittenden,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Middlesex  County. 

Elwood  Douglas's,  Demonstrator  for  Mon- 
mouth County. 

Arden  M.  Ellis,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Irvin  T.  Francis,  A.B.,  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Essex  County. 

Harry  C.  Haines,  Demonstration  Agent  for 
Somerset  County. 

Margaret  H.  Hartnett,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Paterson. 

Cora  a.  Hoffman,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Morris  County. 

Harry  B.  Holcombe,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Burlington  County. 


William  A.  Houston,  Assistant  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Sussex  County. 

Elva  Hughes,  Assistant  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Burlington  County. 

Lauretta  P.  James,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demon- 
stration Agent  for  Mercer  County. 

May  D.  Kemp,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  the  Oranges. 

Harvey  S.  Lippincott,  B.Agr.,  Demonstrator 
for  Morris  County. 

Zelma  Monroe,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Trenton. 

Adelia  F.  Noble,  Home  Demonstration  Agent 
for  Princeton. 

Warren  W.  Oley,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator  for 
Cumberland  County. 

James  A.  Stackhouse,  B.Sc.,  Demonstrator 
for  Cape  May  County. 

W.  Raymond  Stone,  Demonstrator  for  Ber- 
gen County. 

Eunice  Straw,  B.Sc.,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Monmouth  County. 

Norine  Webster,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bayonne. 

Harold  E.  Wettyen,  B.Sc.,  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Passaic  County. 

Carolyn  F.  Wetzel,  Home  Demonstration 
Agent  for  Bergen  County. 

Albert  E.  Wilkinson,  M.Agr.,  Demonstra- 
tion Agent  for  Atlantic  County. 


3 


New  Jersey 

Agricultural  Experiment  Stations 

BULLETIN  335 

JANUARY  30,  1919 

Fertilizer  Registrations  for  1919 

Charles  S.  Cathcart,  State  Chemist 

The  law  entitled  “An  Act  Concerning  Fertilizers,”  which  was 
approved  March  27,  1912,  requires  the  state  chemist  to  publish  an- 
nually a list  of  the  brands  of  fertilizers  that  have  been  registered.  In 
accordance  with  this  requirement  the  following  tabulations  are  pre- 
sented. They  contain  all  of  the  registrations  of  fertilizer  materials 
and  mixed  fertilizers  that  have  been  received  up  to  the  date  of  this 
bulletin  and  which  will  be  in  force  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  October 
31,  1919. 


5 


6 


BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Acme  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

14.76 

1 

18.00 

S.  C.  Phosphate 

16.00 

3.28 

4.00 

4.00 

Harvest  King,  No.  2,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Ideal,  No.  2 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Ammoniated  Pish  Guano,  No.  1, 

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4.10 

5.00 

8.00 

7.00 

Special  Sweet  Potato,  No.  2 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Fish  Mixture,  No.  2 

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Willoughby’s  Mixture,  

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4.00 

Potato  Climax,  No.  2,  

•3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1919  Potato  Climax 

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Acme  Early  Truck,  No.  2 

4.10 

5.00 

8.00 

7.00 

2.00 

Active  Chemical  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J. 

S^TTip^r  . 

3.69 

4.50 

8.00 

Semper  Corn  Grower 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Spmjipr  Soil  Hrcsser  

1.64 

2.00 

3.50 

3.00 

.^pTnppr  All  Crop  

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Semper  Potato  King,  

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

SpTYippr  Ar*tivp  

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Semper  Grain  Royal  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

iih^mppr  Premium  ....  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

• 8.00 

S^mp<^^’  Spppial  

3.28 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

■temper  Crmrlor  

4.10 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

CJfirnper  Vim  

4.10 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Semper  Peerless,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Semper  Vigor 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Semper  Excello 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Semper  Versus 

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Alpha  Portland  Cement  Co.,  Easton,  Pa. 

2.50 

Alphano  Humus  Co.,  New  York  City. 

! 1.25 

'Or'rvrvo  Alr-iVtorirw  T^UPVTllG  . . 

1.50 

The  American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  New  York 

City. 

XTifpof^  rvF  Q/Arl  Q 

15.00 

18.23 

1 0/7/  A r»Ul  T>Vi/YcrtV»Q  to  . 

13.00 

12.00 

RciQir*  T.imo  T^ViocjriVi  n tp  

14.00 

13.00 

15.00 

14.00 

14^^  Acid  Phosphate,  

Phosplicit©,  

17.00 

16.00 

PhosphcX,t6  with  PotRSh 

1 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Dissolved  Phosphate  and  Potash 

1 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


7 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 
lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 
Acid 

Available  Phos- 
phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  American  As’l  Chemical  Co.,  IV.  Y.  City — Cent. 

Fine  Ground  Bone,  

2.47 

3.00 

22.88 

High  Grade  Ground  Bone 

3.29 

4.00 

20.59 

Soluble  Grain  Mixture 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

XXX  Ammoniated  Fertilizer,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.65 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Homestead  Good  Grower 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AAA,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  4^,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AAAA 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

High  Grade  Ammoniated  Fertilizer 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Great  Truck  Special,  

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Sterling  Truck  and  Top  Dressing  Mixture  Revised 

5.76 

7.00 

7.00 

6.00 

High  Nitrate  Mixture  for  Top  Dressing 

8.23 

10.00 

6.00 

5.00 

Eagle  Phosphate,  

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Royal  Potash  Mixture 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Wheat  Corn  and  Grass  Fertilizer 

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Seeding  Down  Mixture 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

All  Crop  Fish  Guano,  Revised,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

• 1.00 

All  Crop  Fish  Guano 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Matchless  Potash  Manure 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

General  Crop  Grower,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Soil  and  Crop  Invigorator,  Revised 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Gardners  Delight,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Top  Dresser  for  Cranberries,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Sure  Growth  Phosphate,  1916  (Sulphate) 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Corn  and  Vegetable  Compound,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Superior  Pish  Guano  for  Broadcasting 

3.29 

4.00 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Samson  Potato  and  Truck  Manure 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Complete  Potato  Mixture,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Odorless  Grass  and  Lawn  Top  Dressing,  Revised, 

3.91 

4.75 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Truckers  Best  Fertilizer,  

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

4.00 

Special  Grass  and  Garden  Mixture,  1916 

8.23 

10.00 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  Special  Superior  Compound,  Revised,  . . 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bradley’s  Golden  Crop  Compound, 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00| 

10.00 

Bradley’s  Truckers’  Delight,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bradley’s  New  Method  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00| 

8.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  Eclipse  Phosphate,  1916 

1.23 

1.50 

11.001 

10.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  Unicorn,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

8 


BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen  V 

o i 

luarani 

A 

> o 

"3  £ 

^ £ 

c o 

<p+-> 

b£)+j 

o c 

oi 

teed  M 
malysii 

o 

a 

m 

o 

a; 

h 

m w. 

3 

Available  Phos-  5' 

phoric  Acid  ^ 

3 1 

c 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  American  Ag’l  Chemical  Co.,  N.  Y.  City — Cont. 

Bradley’s  Patent  Superphosphate,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  Half  Century  Fertilizer,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Bradley  s Potato  Manure,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  XL  Superphosphate  of  Lime,  1916,  . . . 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  Complete  Manure  for  Potatoes  and 

Vegetables,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Bradley’s  Peerless  Potato  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Bradley’s  Golden  Eagle,  1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Crocker’s  Special  Grain  Grower 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 



Crocker’s  Special  Colonial  Fertilizer,  Revised,  . . 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 



Crocker’s  Champion  Potato  Grower 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Crocker’s  Universal  Grain  Grower,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Crocker’s  Complete  Manure,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Crocker’s  New  Rival  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Crocker’s  Harvest  Jewel  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Crocker’s  High  Grade  Special,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Crocker's  Special  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Crocker’s  Special  Potato  and  Cabbage  Manure,.. 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Crocker’s  Best  Truck  Manure,  1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

East  India  Special  Improved  Compound 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

East  India  Early  Market 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 



East  India  Victor  Special,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

lifist  India  Economizer  Phosphate,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

East  India  Mayflower,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

East  India  Corn  King,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

East  India  Potato  Special,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

East  India  Potato  and  Garden  Manure 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

East  India  Black  Hawk  Potato  and  Truck  Ferti- 

lizer, 1919 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Great  Eastern  Dissolved  Acid  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00 

Great  Eastern  General,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Great  Eastern  Special  Crop  Fertilizer,  1916,  .... 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Great  Eastern  High  Grade  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Great  Eastern  Wheat  Special,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Great  Eastern  Northern  Corn  Special,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Great  Eastern  Vegetable,  Vine  and  Tobacco  Fer- 

tilizer, 1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Great  Eastern  Tomato  and  Potato  Special,  1916, 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Golden  Eagle 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Milsom’s  Spppjjil  TTflrrow  Brand,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Milsom’s  Potato  Producer 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Milsom’s  Wheat,  Oats  and  Barley,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Potato  and  Cabbage  Manure,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


9 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


1 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva 

lent  to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid  1 

Potash 

The  American  Ag’l  Chemical  Co.,  N.  Y.  City — Cont. 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Milsom’s  Soil  Enricher,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Buffalo  Fertilizer,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Potato,  Hop  and  Tobacco  Fertilizer,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Corn  Fertilizer,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Medal  Brand  Manure,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Milsom’s  Truck  Fertilizer,  1916,  

3.70 

4.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Moro-Phillips’  Farmers’  Potato  Mixture,  1916,.. 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Moro-Phillips’  Pure  Phuine,  1916 

Moro-Phillips’  Special  No.  1 Potato  and  Truckj 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Manure,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Moro-Phillips’  High  Grade  Truck  Manure,  1916,. 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Complete  Compound,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Challenge  Fertilizer,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Farmers  Standard,  1916,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Shawnee  Phosphate,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Diamond  Potash  Mixture,  1916,.. 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Homestead  Fertilizer,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Red  Line  Fertilizer,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

North  Western  Garden  Manure,  1916 

Packer’s  Union  Superior  Acid  Phosphate 

3.29 

4.00 

1 

10.00 

15.00 

9.00 

14.00 

1.00 

Packer’s  Union  Universal  Fertilizer,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Packer’s  Union  Superior  Crop  Grower,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Packer’s  Union  Animal  Corn  Fertilizer,  1916,  .. 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

^ 1.00 

Packer’s  Union  Potato  Manure,  1916 

2.06 

1 2.50 

1 11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Potomac.  Fruit  Tree  Specia.1,  

1.65 

I 2.00 

j 13.00 

12.00 

Potomac  Golden  Harvest  Revised 

2.47 

1 3.00 

2.00 

1 11.00 

10.00 

Potomac  Complete  Manure,  1916,  

1.65 

1 10.00 

1 9.00 

1.00 

Potomac  Potato  Special 

3.29 

1 4.00 

1 9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Potomac  Golden  Potato  Manure,  

3.29 

1 4.00 

1 10.00 

1 9.00 

1.00 

Preston's  Pioneer  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1 1.00 

1 11.00 

1 10.00 

1.00 

Preston’s  Corn,  Tomato  and  Potato  Guano,  1916, 

1.65 

1 2.00 

1 10.00 

1 9.00 

1.00 

Preston’s  Special  New  Jersey  Brand,  1916,  

2.47 

1 3.00 

1 10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Read’s  Practical  Grain  Grower,  

1.65 

2.47 

1 2.00 

11.00 

1 10.00 

Read’s  Farm  and  Garden  Manure 

1 

1 3.00 

11.00 

1 10.00 

Rparl’s  Tr>p  Notch  TVTi'vtiirp  

3.29 

1 4.00 

11.00 

1 10.00 

Read’s  Leader  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1 1.00 

9.00 

1 8.00 

1.00 

Read’s  All  Crops  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Read’s  Corn,  Wheat  and  Rye,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

1 9.00 

1.00 

Read’s  Farmers’  Friend  Superphosphate,  1916,  . , 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

1 8.00 

1.00 

Read’s  Vegetable  and  Vine  Fertilizer,  1916 

Read’s  High  Grade  Farmers’  Friend  Superphos- 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

1 9.00 

1.00 

phate,  1916 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

1 9.00 

1.00 

Read’s  Truck  Fertilizer,  1916 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

1 8.00 

1.00 

lO 


BULLETIN 


335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


|! 

Nitrogen  j 

uarant 

A 

, 

os'S 
> o 

'5  S 

^ c 

c o 

0) 

bc+j 

P 

(1) 

;eed  M 
malysii 

o 

.c 

a 

to 

o 

Available  Phos-  a' 

phoric  Acid  a 

3 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  American  Ag’l  Chemical  Co.,  IV.  Y.  City — Cont. 

Reese’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  Mixture,  1916,  . . 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Reese’s  Potato  Manure,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Grain  Mixture,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Practical  Guano,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Gold  Seal  Potato  Manure 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Griscom’s  King  Crab 

Compound,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Royal  Spring  Mixture, 

1916 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Farmer’s  Brand  Phos- 

1 

phate,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Pish  Guano,  1916,  Revised 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter  s Potato,  Corn  and  Truck 

1 

Guano,  1916,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s,  No.  1 Brand  Phosphate, 

1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Complete  Manure,  1916, 

Revised,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Complete  Manure,  1916, 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Fish  Guano,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Vegetable  and  Potato 

Manure,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Sharpless  & Carpenter’s  Soluble  Tampico  Guano, 

1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Allen’s  Popular  Phosphate,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Tygert-Allen’s  Star  Potato  Grower,  1916 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Tygert-Allen’s  Standard  Brand  Phosphate,  1916, 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Tygert-Allen’s  Reliable  Crop  Grower,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Tygert-Allen’s  Star  Brand  Phosphate,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Allen’s  Sweet  Potato  Manure,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Allen’s  Potato  and  Truck  Manure,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Allen’s  10%  Guano,  1916 

8.23 

10.00 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Whcp.lcr’.'?  PpprlesR  Arid  Phnspha.tp,  

15.00 

14.00 

Wheeler’s  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

Wheeler’s  Royal  Wheat  Grower,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Wheeler’s  Corn  Fertilizer,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

AVheeler’s  Potato  Manure,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Wheeler’s  Reliable  Manure,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Wheeler’s  High  Grade  Special,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Williams  Xj  Clark’s  Stprling’  Mixtiirp  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Mammoth  Crop  Producer,  . . 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Special  Potato  and  Root  Fer- 

tilizer,   

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 



FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


1 1 


G 

c 

(U 

ho 

o 

uarant 

A 

. .5 

> O 

‘B  S 

s o 

0) 

bXl-M 

o c 

tn  (U 

Z 

eed  Mi 
nalysis 

't. 

o 

.c 

a 

o 

p 

p 

i 3 ■ 

Available  Phos-  | g'  | 

phoric  Acid  | p ■ 

=5  il 

i 

M 

+3 

o 

'%■ 

% 

% 1 

% 

% 

The  American  As’l  Chemical  Co.,  N.  Y.  City — Cent. 

1 

Williams  & Clark  s Special  Prolific  Crop  Producer 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00| 

8.00 

1.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Matchless  Fertilizer,  1916,  . . 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00| 

9.00j 

1.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Meadow  Queen  Fertilizer,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00| 

9.00| 

1.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Potato  Special 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00| 

8.00 

3.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Americas  High  Grade  Special! 

1 

for  Potatoes  and  Root  Crops,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

lo.ooj 

9.00 

1.00 

Williams  & Clark’s  Utility  Brand 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

American  Fertilizing  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00| 

16.00j 

American  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate,  

17.00 

American  Alkaline  Mixture,  

9.00 

American  Phosphate  and  Potash,  

11.00 

8.00[ 

o.UU 

1.00 

American  Dissolved  Phosphate  and  Potash 

11.00 

10.00| 

2.00 

American  Special  Pish  Guano 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

lO.OOj 

lo.ooj 

American  Champion  Ammoniated  Phosphate,  .... 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00| 

American  Fish  Special,  

1.65 

2.00 

12.00 

ll.OOj 

American  Eagle  Ammoniated  Compound 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00| 



American  Eagle  Potato  and  Truck  Grower,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1 

American  Truck  and  Vegetable  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 



American  Truck  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  . . 

4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

1 8.00| 

I 

American  Potato  Superphosphate 

4.12 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1 

American  Reliable  Guano 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Ammoniated  Crop  Compound 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

American  Grain  and  Grass  Grower,  

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

3.00 

American  Eagle  Crop  Grower 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

American  Pish  and  Potash  Compound,  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

American  Pish  and  Potash  Compound,  Revised, 

1918 

1.65 

2.00 

9.50 

8.50 

1.00 

American  Eagle  Guano,  Revised 

•2.47 

1 3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

American  Potato  Guano  with  1^  Potash,  

3.29 

1 4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

American  Potato  and  Truck  Guano,  

3.29 

1 4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

American  Eagle  Truck  and  Vegetable  Manure,  . . 

3.29 

1 4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

American  Potato  and  Vegetable  Manure  with  1^ 

Potash,  

3.29 

1 4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

American  Potato  and  Vegetable  Compound,  . . . . 

3.29 

1 4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

American  Eagle  Truck  Fertilizer  with  1%  Potash, 

1 4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1 1.00 

American  Eagle  Truckers  Special 

1 4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

American  Potato  and  Truck  Compound,  

1 4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Acid  Phosphate,  

14.50 

14.00 

Star  Phosphate  

14.50 

14.00 

Acid  Phosphate  

16.50 

16.00 

Phosphate  and  Potash,  No.  1 

10.50 

10.00 

2.00 

12 


BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen  ' 

O i 

c 

Nitrogen  Equiva-  ^ 

lent  to  Ammonia  P 

5. 

:eed  M 
malysi! 

o 

't, 

o 

x: 

o 

m 

o 

.s: 

'O 

S'  1 

Available  Phos-  5'  * 

phoric  Acid  ^ 

3 

1 

xi 

3 

+J 

O 

Oh 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Baltimore,  Md.— — Cont. 

Phosphate  and  Potash 

10.50 

10.00 

2.00 

Bone  Meal 

2.47 

3.00 

22.00 

Animal  Bone 

2 47 

3.00 

22.00 

Raw  Bone  Meal,  

3.70 

4.50 

21.50 

Tuscarora’s  1-10-0  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Armour’s  1-10-0  Fertilizer 

0.82 

1.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Armour’s  li/^-9-O  Fertilizer 

1.23 

1.50 

9.50 

9.00 

Tuscarora’s  l^/^-O-O  Fertilizer 

1.23 

1.50 

10.50 

10.00 

1.65 

2.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Armour’s  2-10-0  Fertilizer,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Armour’s  3-10-0  Fertilizer,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Tuscarora's  3-10-0  Fertilizer,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Tuscarora’s  4-10-0  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

Armour’s  4-10-0  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

1 10.50 

1 10.50 

10.00 

Armour’s  5-10-0  Fertilizer 

4.11 

5.00 

10.00 

Tuscarora’s  5-10-0  Fertilizer 

4.11 

5.00 

1 10.50 

10.00 

Wheat  Corn  and  Oats  Special, 

0.82 

1.00 

1 10.50 

1 7.50 

7.00 

1.00 

Ammoniated  Phosphate 

0.82 

1.00 

1 7.50 

7.00 

1.00 

Crop  Grower,  

0.82 

1.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

2.00 

Royal  Ammoniated,  

0.82 

1.00 

j 8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

York  State  Special,  

0.82 

1.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

Grain  Grower 

1.65 

2.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

2.00 

Standard 

1.65 

2.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

2.00 

Tuscarora’s  2-8-5  Fertilizer 

1.65 

2.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

5.00 

Fruit  and  Root  Crop  Special 

1.65 

2.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

5.00 

Armour’s  4-8-3  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Tuscarora’s  4-8-3  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Tuscarora’s  4-8-4  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

1 8.50 

8.00| 

1 4.00 

Armour’s  4-8-4  Fertilizers  

3.29 

4.00 

1 8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

M.  B.  Atkinson,  Bogota,  N.  J. 

Atlrinsnn’s  FrAparprl  ’FTnmiiR  

1.25 

1.50 

1.00 

James  H.  Baird  & Son,  Marlboro,  N.  J. 

4 1/9-1014-0 

3.70 

4.50 

12.50 

10.50 

Baltimore  Pulverizing  €o.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Special  Spring  and  Fall  Mixture,  

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Fnrn  anrl  t^rain  

13.00 

12.00 

1.00 

Ammonisit^d  FipVi  1 

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Farmers’  Favorite  Fertilizer 

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

7.50 

1.00 

Penniman’s  Special  Guano 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Special  Potato  Mixture 

1.64 

2.00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Ammoniated  Fish  Guano,  No.  2 

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Special  Strawberry  Compound 

3.28 

4.00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 


3 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


The  Barrett  Co.,  JVew  York  City. 

Arcadian  Sulphate  of  Ammonia 

Baagh  <&  Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Dried  Ground  Blood,  

Nitrate  of  Soda 

Sulphate  of  Ammonia 

Baugh’s  Pure  Steamed  Bone,  

Baugh’s  Raw  Bone  Meal 

Baugh’s  High  Grade  Tankage,  

Baugh’s  High  Grade  Tankage,  

Ground  Fish 

Baugh’s  High  Grade  Tankage,  

Ground  Fish,  

Ground  Fish,  

Finely  Ground  Pure  Phosphate  Rock  Unacidulated 

Baugh’s  14%  Acid  Phosphate 

Baugh’s  16%  Acid  Phosphate 

Baugh’s  Peninsula  Grain  Producer,  1919,  


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Baugh’s  Corn  and  Oats  Fertilizer 

Baugh’s  The  Old  Stand-By  ; Dissolved  Animal  Base 

Baugh’s  Truckers’  Favorite 

Baugh’s  High-Grade  Ammoniated  Animal  Base, . 

Baugh's  Superb  Potato  Phosphate 

Baugh’s  General  Crop  Grower  for  All  Crops,  . . . 

Baugh’s  Special  Vegetable  Fertilizer,  

Baugh’s  Complete  Animal  Base  Fertilizer,  1919, 

Baugh’s  Special  Potato  Manure,  1919 

Baugh’s  Durable  Plant  Pood,  

Baugh’s  High-Grade  Potato  Grower,  “Big  Potato” 

Brand 

Baugh’s  White  Potato  Special 

Baugh’s  Peruvian  Guano  Substitute  for  Potatoes 

and  All  Vegetables,  1919 

Various  Special  Mixtures  of  Registered  Ingredi- 
ents, in  accordance  with  ruling  of  State  Chemist. 
Berger  Bros.,  Elaston,  Pa. 

Peerless  Phosphate,  1916 

Lehigh  Superphosphate,  1916,  

The  Berg  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Berg’s  Raw  Bone  Fine 

Berg’s  Special  Wheat  Grower 

Berg’s  Special  Crop  Grower,  

Berg’s  Special  Bone  Manure  without  Potash,  . . . 


I Nitrogen 

1 

1 1 

Nitrogen  Equiva-  1 

1 lent  to  Ammonia  1 

Total  Phosphoric 
Acid  1 

Available  Phos- 

phoric  Acid 

m 

2 

o 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

20.75 

25.25 

9.88 

12.00 

15.23 

18.50 

20.57 

25.00 

1.65 

2.00 

25.00 

3.30 

4.00 

18.30 

4.94 

6.00 

3.00 

5.76 

7.00 

3.50 

5.80 

7.00 

4.80 

6.58 

8.00 

1 4.00 

7.42 

9.00 

6.00 

8.23 

10.00 

6.87 

30.50 

14.00 

14.00 

16.00 

16.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

9.00 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.65 

2.00 

12.00 

12.00 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

3.30 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

4.12 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

9.00 

3.00 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

I 

3.30 

1 4.00 

8.00 

8.00' 

1 1.00 

3.30 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1 3.00 

4.12 

5.00 

1 8.00 

8.00 

1 1.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

3.64 

22.00 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

8.00 

1.65 

2.00 

14.00 

10.00 

2.00 

2.43 

1 11.00 

7.00 

14 


BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

The  Berg  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. — Continued. 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Berg’s  Special  Truck  Grower 

2.47 

3.00 

14.00 

1 n on 

Berg’s  Bone  and  Meat 

3.30 

4.00 

17.00 

1 4 00 

Berg’s  Uneed  Bone  Manure,  • 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Berg’s  Bone  and  Potash  Guano,  

1.65 

2.00 

14.00 

10.00 

2.00 

Berg’s  Vigor  Volo  Bone  Manure,  

2.00 

2.43 

11.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Berg’s  Standard  Bone  Manure,  1919,  

2.47 

3.00 

14.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Bon  Arbor  Chemical  Co.,  Paterson,  N.  J. 

Wood  Ashes 

1.00 

1.00 

Bon  Arbor,  No.  1 Soluble  Plant  Life, 

15.00 

18.21 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Bowker’s  Soluble  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00 

Bowker’s  16^  Acid  Phosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

Bowker’s  Fresh  Ground  Bone,  

2.47 

3.00 

22.88 

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  1^,  . . . 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bowker  s Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  2^,  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bowker's  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  3^,  ... 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  4^,  . . . 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Bowker’s  Superphosphate  with  Ammonia  5%,  . . . 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Bowker’s  High  Nitrogen  Mixture  without  Potash, 

8.23 

10.00 

6.00 

5.00 

Bowker’s  Staple  Phosphate,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Wheat  and  Corn  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Bowker’s  Sure  Crop  Phosphate,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Standard  Phosphate,  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Bowker’s  Farm  and  Garden  Phosphate,  1916, 

Revised | 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Farm  and  Garden  Phosphate,  1916,  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Sweet  Potato  and  Truck  Manure,  1916, 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  All  Round  Fertilizer,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Bowker's  Lawn  and  Garden  Dressing,  1918 

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Hill  and  Drill  Phosphate,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Superior  Fish  Guano  for  Broadcasting, 

3.29 

4.00 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Potato  Special,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Stockbridge  General  Crop  Manure,  1916 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Bowker’s  Complete,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Louis  Burk,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Tankage 

3.60 

4.38 

19.90 

12.71 

Chamberlin  & Barclay,  Cranbury,  N.  J. 

Chamberlin  & Barclay’s,  1919,  Special,  

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Magic  Brand  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure 

1.85 

2.25 

1.50 

1.43 

1.25 

The  Coe-.>Iortimer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Basic  Fruit  and  Legume  Phosphate 

(Basic  Lime  Phosphate)  (Key-Plow  Brand),  ... 

14.00 

13.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  High  Grade  Soluble  Phosphate,  . . 

16.00 

14.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


15 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  Coe-Mortimer  Co.,  ]Vew  York  City — Continued. 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  16%  Superphosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

Fine  Ground  Bone 

2.47 

3.00 

22.88 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  XXV  Ammoniated  Phosphate, 

1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Original  Ammoniated  Dissolved 

Phosphate,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  High  Grade  Ammoniated  Super- 

phosphate,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

E.  Frank  Coe  s Prolific  Crop  Producer,  1916,  .... 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Gardners’  and  Truckers’  Special, 

1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Top  Dressing  Manure,  1916,  .... 

I 6.58 

8.00 

9.00 

8.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  New  Englander  Special,  1916,  .. 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  General  Crop  Manure,  Revised, 

i 0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Columbian  Corn  and  Potato  Fer- 

tilizer, 1916,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Empire  State  Brand,  Revised,  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Universal  Fertilizer,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Gold  Brand  Excelsior  Guano,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Standard  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916, 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

E.  Frank  Coe  s Monmouth  County  Special  Potato 

Fertilizer,  Revised,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

E.  Frank  Coe’s  Red  Brand  Excelsior  Guano,  1916 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Country  Club  (Reg.  U.  S.  Pat.  Office),  Golf  and 

Lawn  Fertilizer,  1916,  Brand  A.  for  Putting 

Greens 

5.76 

7.00 

4.00 

3.00 

1.00 

J.  S.  Collins  & Son,  Inc.,  Moorestown,  N.  J. 

Armour’s  Bone  Meal  Fertilizer j 

2.47 

3.00 

Dried  and  Ground  Fish 

10.00 

12.00 

Nitrate  Soda 

14.81 

18.00 

16%  Acid  Phosphate, 

17.00 

16.00 

Special  2-12  Fertilizer 

1.61 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Special  3-10  Fertilizer,  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Special  4-10  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Armour’s  Sheep  Manure,  

1.66| 

2.00 

1.00 

1.00 

3.25 

The  Consumers  Chemcial  Corp.,  New  York  City. 

Consumer’s  Dried  Fish,  

8.23 

10.00 

Consumer’s  Tankage,  

8.23 

10.00 

Consumer’s  Nitrate  of  Soda,  . . •. 

14.81 

18.00 

Consumer  s Pure-Sure  Acid  Phosphate 

15.00 

14.00 

Consumer’s  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

17.00 

16.00 

Coiisiirn6r’s  Bone  

2.47 

3.00 

22.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Phosphate  and  Potash,  . . . 

10.00 

9.00 

2.00 

Consumer  s Pure-Sure  Potash  Mixture,  

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

i6  BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen 

P 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent  to  Ammonia  p 

.nalysi! 
;eed  M 

o 

o 

a 

W 

o 

S' 

Available  Phos-  P‘ 

phoric  Acid  g 

P 

1 

02 

S 

O 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  Consumers  Chemical  Corp.,  N.  Y.  City — Cont. 

Consumer’s  All  Crop  Compound  (without  Potash) 

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Ammoniated  Bone  Phos- 

phate,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Corn  and  Grain  Bone  Phos- 

phate,  

1.65 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Corn  and  Vegetable  (with- 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Potato  and  Vegetable 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Potato  Manure  (without 

Pota  fib  , 

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Truckers’  Mixture  (with- 

mit  Pnta.sb  ) , 

4.94 

6.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Plant  Food 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Consumer’s  All  Crop  Compound,  

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

3.00 

Consumer’s  XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture,  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Consumer’s  Complete  Compound,  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Fertilizer  for  General  Use, 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Corn  and  Vegetable  (with 

Potash),  

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Potato  and  Vegetable  (with 

Potash),  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Potato  and  Vegetable  (with 

3%  Potash) 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Consumer’s  Pure-Sure  Potato  Manure  (with  1^ 

Potash) 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

E.  Dougherty,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

XitrRt<^  nf  Pnfla  

15.00 

18.23 

of  Ammonia 

20.15 

24.50 

A'^id  PbF>‘*pbaf<^  

14.75 

14.00 

AojH  PViospViato  

16.00 

Dom^Sti'’  PofapiVi  IVTa  ferial  

23.00 

o^  

40.00 

Sulpha  '^f  Potash  

47.00 

Muriate  of  Potash 

50.00 

Pulverized  Sheep  Manure, 

1.64 

2.00 

1.00 

Ground  Steamed  Bone,  

2.46 

3.00 

22.88 

Tankag<^  

4.11 

5.00 

6.86 

T£inkfi£‘^  iiiiiiTi ---  - . 

4.94 

6.00 

9.16 

Fish  Guano  Compound,  

5.75 

7.00 

4.57 

JameN  G.  Downward  Co.,  Coatesvllle,  Pa. 

Phosplif^t^  i * 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

*PVlAQnliatA  

1.65 

2,00 

11.00 

10.00 

Pioneer  Potato  Phosphate,  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


17 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


1 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonij 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  Fertile  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Lime-Fertile,  

3.00 

Nitro-Fertile 

2.00 

2.40 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

J.  Fischer  & Co.,  Keyport,  N.  J. 

Nitrate  of  Soda  Sweepings  (Sifted) 

10.00 

12.14 

Fogg  & Hires  Co.,  Salem,  X.  J. 

Wonder  Brand 

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Alexander  Forbes  & Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Forbes  Complete  Garden  Fertilizer  War  Brand,  . . 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

8.00 

Forbes  Perfection  Lawn  Dressing  War  Brand,  . . 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

8.00 

1.00 

D.  Fullerton  & Co.,  Paterson,  N.  J. 

Tankage,  

7.03 

8.53 

6.15 

Godfrey  Co-operative  Fertilizer  and  Chemical  Co., 

• Newark,  N.  J. 

Godfrey’s  14^  Acid  Phosphate 

14.50 

14.00 

Godfrey’s  16^  Acid  Phosphate 

16.50 

16.00 

Godfrey’s  Phosphate  and  Potash,  

10.50 

10.00 

2.00 

Godfrey’s  Pure  Bone  Meal,  

2.47 

3.00 

23.00 

Godfrey’s  Raw  Bone  Meal 

3.70 

4.50 

21.50 

Godfrey’s  Special  Florists’  Tankage,  

4.94 

6.00 

12.00 

Godfrey’s  High  Grade  Florists’  Tankage 

7.40 

9.00 

6.00 

Godfrey’s  Special  Mixture,  

0.82 

1.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Godfrey’s  Grain  Grower 

1.23 

1.50 

9.50 

9.00 

Godfrey’s  Corn  Mixture 

1.65 

2.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Godfrey’s  Vegetable  Mixture 

2.47 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Godfrey’s  Early  Potato  Mixture 

3,29 

4.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Godfrey’s  Potato  and  Truck  Mixture,  

4.11 

1 5.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Godfrey’s  Special 

0.82 

I C W V 

1.00 

7.50 

7.00 

1.00 

Godfrey’s  Special  Grain  and  Sure  Crop  Fertilizer, 

Revised,  

0.82 

1.00 

8.50 

8.00 

2.00 

Godfrey’s  Superior  Grain  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1.00 

8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

Godfrey’s  Grain  and  Grass  Fertilizer,  

1.65 

2.00 

8.50 

8.00 

2.00 

Godfrey’s  Corn  and  Truck  Grower 

1.65 

2.00 

8.50 

8.00 

5.00 

Godfrey’s  Corn  Grower,  Revised 

1.65 

2.00 

10.50 

10.00 

2.00 

Godfrey’s  H.  G.  Market  Garden  Manure,  Revised, 

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

1.00 

Godfrey’s  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Godfrey’s  Potato  and  Truck  Grower,  

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

Godfrey’s  Potato  Manure,  Revised 

3.29 

4.00 

9.50 

9.00 

2.00 

G.  G.  Green,  Jr.,  Woodbury,  N.  J. 

Pure  Ground  Bone,  

2.47 

3.00 

22.90 

Hafleigh  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Pure  Raw  Bone  Meal,  

3.75 

4.50 

26.84 

i8 


BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


G 

c 

<D 

bx) 

0 

Hh 

1 

c ! 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent  to  Ammonia  p 

S 

;eed  M 
.nalysi! 

o 

K 

O 

o ^ 

3 

Available  Phos-  5' 

phoric  Acid  g 

3 

1 

m 

O 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Peter  Henderson  & Co.,  New  York  City. 

Henderson’s  Raw  Bone  Meal,  

2.47 

3.00 

20.00 

Henderson’s  Special  Blood  and  Bone  Fertilizer,  . . 

3.29 

4.00 

17.00 

Henderson’s  Worm  Killing’  Grass  Food,  

2.36 

2.87 

. ■ 

1.00 

Henderson’s  Lawn  Enricher  War  Special,  

2.47 

3.00 

4.50 

3.50 

1.00 

Henderson’s  Garden  Fertilizer  War  Special,  .... 

4.12 

5.00 

8.00 

6.00 

1.00 

Henderson’s  Superior  Fertilizer  for  House  Plants, 

4.50 

5.46 

10.00 

5.50 

2.00 

Heritage  & Brother,  Mullica  Hill,  N.  J. 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Pancoast’s  Old  Reliable  Potato  Grower,  

. 3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Pan  mast's  .Jersey  Pota.to  Gua.no,  

4.12 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Pancoast’s  Royal  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture,  .... 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Pancoast’s  Champion  Potato  & Vegetable  Grower, 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

S.  M.  Hess  &.  Brother,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

• 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  

15.00 

18.23 

Aeid  Phosphate,  

13.00 

12.00 

High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00 

Special  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

Pine  (T^ronnrl  Bone  

2.47 

3.00 

22.88 

High  Grade  Ground  Bone,  

3.29 

4.00 

20.59 

Ammoniated  Grain  Grower,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Stanria.rd  Superphosphate  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

■Superior  Superphosphate  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Peliahle  Superphosphate  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Wigh  Brarie  .Superphosphate  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Market  Gardeners’  Manure 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

High  Grade  Potato  Grower,  

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Top  Dressing  Manure,  

8.23 

10.00 

6.00 

5.00 

Keystone  Phosphate,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Special  Corn  Manure,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Wheat  and  Grass  Manure,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Fish  and  Potash  Manure,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Big  Crop  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Potato  Manure,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Farmers’  Potato  and  Truck  Grower,  1919, 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Special  Cabbage  Manure,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Special  Potato  Manure,  1916,  

3.70 

4.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Vegetable  Compound,  1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Hiil  Brothern,  Flemington,  N.  J. 

TTill  "Rrrvc!  7Slr\  9 'PVmQnViotA  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Hill  Bros.  Eureka  Brand  Phosphate, 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  EOR  1919 


19 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


' 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 
lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 
Acid 

1 Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Thomas  Hill,  Flemington,  IV.  J. 

Thomas  Hill’s  2-10 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Thomas  Hill’s  2-12,  

1.65 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Thomas  Hill’s  3.10,  | 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

P,  Hoft'man  & Bro.,  Raubsville,  Pa. 

Hoffman’s  All  Crops,  

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

7.00 

The  Hubbard  Fertilizer  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

15.00 

14.00 

Hubbard’s  16^  Phosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Hubbard’s  Excelsior  Mixture 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Hubbard’s  4-10-0  Fertilizer,  

3.28 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Hubbard’s  Farmers’  I.  X.  L.,  

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Hubbard’s  4-8-3  Fertilizer,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Hubbard’s  4-10-3  Fertilizer,  

3.28 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Hudson  Carbon  Co.,  Ballston,  N.  Y. 

Davidge’s  Special  Phosphorus,  

5.00 

Davidge’s  Concentrated  Manure,  

1.00 

1.25 

1.00 

Davidge’s  A 1 Manure,  

1.00 

1.25 

1.00 

Humus  Natural  Manure  Co.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Humus  Natural  Manure 

1.25 

1.50 

Hyper  Humus  Co.,  Newton,  N.  J. 

Hyper  Humus,  

1.33 

1.61 

International  Agriculture  Corp-Buffalo  Fertilizer 

Works,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Buffalo  Sixteen  Percent,  

17.00 

16.00 

Buffalo  Farmers  Choice 

0.80 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Buffalo  Ammoniated  Phosphate,  

1.20 

1.50 

13.00 

12.00 

Buffalo  Tdea.l  Wbea.t  and  Corn,  

1.60 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Buffalo  Vegetable  and  Potato,  

2.50 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Buffalo  Garden  Truck,  . . 

3.30 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Buffalo  General  Favorite, 

0.80 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Buffalo  Potash  Special 

0.80 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Buffalo  Triumph,  

1.60 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Buffalo  Potato  and  Corn 

1.60 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4.00 

International  Seed  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y, 

International  Crop  Grower,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

International  General  Phosphate,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

International  Grain  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

International  Special  Manure,  

1.65 

2 00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

John  Joynt,  Lucknow,  Ontario,  Canada. 

“The  Joynt  Brand”  Canada  Unleached  Hardwood 

A sbfts  

1.00 

2.00 

20 


BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen 

0 

c 

Nitrogen  Equiva-  ^ 

lent  to  Ammonia  P 

eed  Mi 
nalysij 

0 

0 

a 

m 

0 

4:^ 

'd 

3 

Available  Phos-  3 

phoric  Acid  ^ 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

H.  B.  Ivemp,  Branch,  N.  J. 

Kemp’s  Garden  City  Phosphate,  

14.00 

14.00 

2.47! 

3.00 

23.00 

3.70| 

4.50 

21.50 

1.65 

2.00 

10.50 

10.00 

2.47 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

2.47 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Kemp’s  Ideal  Potato  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

3.29 

4.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Kemp’s  Ideal  Garden  Fertilizer 

4.11 

5.00 

8.50 

8.00 

4.11 

5.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Kemp’s  Shredded  Cattle  Manure,  

1.65 

2.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.50 

Kemp’s  Pulverized  Cattle  Manure 

1.65 

2.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.50 

Kemp’s  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure 

2.06 

2.50 

1.50 

1.50 

1.50 

Kemp’s  Garden  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

1.00 

Kemp’s  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

3.00 

Kemp’s  High  Grade  Potato  Manure 

3.29 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

Kemp’s  A 1 Potato  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.50 

9.00 

2.00 

Keystone  Bone  Fertilizer  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

i 

Keystone  14^  Acid  Phosphate,  

1 

15.00 

14.00 

Keystone  16^  Acid  Phosphate 

1 

17.00 

16.00 

r^rminrl  Pnnp  

2.05 

2.50 

20.00 

1 Q1 Q T^pystnnp  Fish  anrl  Tankage,  

3.28 

4.00 

3.00 

Keystone  Economv  Grain  Compound,  

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

K^^ystonn  Special  Penna  (T-rain  Mixture,  

0.82 

1.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Keystone  Ammoniated  Superphosphate 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Keystone  Standard  Potato  Manure  Revised,  .... 

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Keystone  Special  Potato  and  Tomato  Mixture,  . . 

3.28 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Trip'll  ... 

4.10 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Keystone  Special  Truck  and  Corn  Manure,  

4.10 

1 5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Keystone  Grain  and  Grass  Manure 

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

1919  Keystone  Sweet  Potato  Manure 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

' 8.00 

2.00 

Keystone  Extra  Potato  Manure,  

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1919  Keystone  Supreme  Potato  and  Truck  Manure 

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Keystone  Gold  Medal  Special,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Kirke  Chemical  <'o.,  Inc.,  Brooklyn,  IV.  Y. 

Kirke  Fertilizer,  

5.00 

6.10 

8.25 

7.50 

3.00 

Benjamin  Lieber,  .Vtlantic  City,  N.  .1. 

Flag  Brand  Tankage,  

j 4.04 

4.91 

17.89 

Se>v  Efi ‘^y  Trertiliy.er  

4.49 

5.45 

17.18 

IdnterN  Agricultural  Chi^mical  Works,  Newark,  N.  J. 

1 

1 

Listers  Buyer’s  Choice  Acid  Phosphate,  

1 

15.00 

14.00 

T.iatoTQ  1 p'‘Vi  Ar*iH  

17.00 

16.00 

Listers  Dissolved  Phosphate  and  Potash,  1916,  . . 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  EOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


21 


Nitrogen  1 

ruarani 

A 

C 
> O 

■3  £ 

G 0 

CU 

hb-t-' 

? ” 

^ 0) 

Z 

teed  M 
Lnalysi 

0 

.c 

a 

in 

0 

P 

“ 5-  1 

Available  Phos- 

phoric  Acid  g 

rr 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

Listers  Ag’l  Chemical  Works,  Newark,  N.  J. — Cont. 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

Listers  Bone  Meal,  1916,  

2.47 

3.00 

23.00 

Listers  Celebrated  Ground  Bone  and  Tankage 

2.67 

1 3.25 

12.00 

Listers  Plant  Food,  1916,  for  Grain  and  Grass,  . . 

0.82 

1 1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Plant  Food,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Crescent  Arnmoniated  Superphosphate,  1916 

1.65 

! 2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Crescent  Arnmoniated  Superphosphate, 

i 

1916,  for  Grain  and  Grass,  

1.65 

1 2.00 

I'l.OO 

10.00 

2.47 

j 3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Superior  Arnmoniated  Superphosphate,  1916 

3.29 

1 4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Atlas  Brand  Fertilizer,  1916,  

4.11 

i 5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Listers  Brakeley  Special  Mixture,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

A.  B.  Special  Fertilizer,  Revised 

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Special  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Listers  Squirrel  Brand  Fertilizer,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Listers  1-8-2  Fertilizer, 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Listers  Valley  Brand  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Listers  Success  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

, 10.00 

1.00 

Listers  Harvest  Queen  Phosphate,  1916,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Listers  U.  S.  Superphosphate,  1916 

1,23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Listers  New  York  Special  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Listers  Wheat  and  Rye  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Listers  Corn  and  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Listers  Arnmoniated  Dissolved  Superphosphate, 

I 

1916,  

2.06 

1 2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Listers  Lawn  Fertilizer,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Listers  Special  Wheat  Fertilizer,  1916, 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Listers  Potato  and  Corn,  No.  2 Fertilizer,  1916,  . • 

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10. Od 

1.00 

Listers  Standard  Pure  Superphosphate  of  Lime, 

1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Listers  4-8-3  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Listers  Perfect  Potato  Manure,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Listers  Vegetable  Compound,  1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

liOcke  & Black,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

Ring  Crab  

9.22 

11.25 

Bon^  

4.10 

5.00 

21.00 

Bone  Tankage  

4.51 

5.50 

21.00 

5.12 

6.25 

7.00 

6 25^  Pure  Animal  Tankage,  

5.51 

6.75 

13.00 

6 75^  High  Grade  Animal  Tankage,  

7 50^  High  Grade  Animal  Tankage, 

6.15 

7.50 

10.00 

No  3 Sweet  pritafr*  RArtiliTier,  

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

No.  6 All  Around  Fertilizer,  

2.05 

2.50 

8.00 

7.00 

22 


BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen 

o 

luaran 

I 

1 

03 ‘S 
> O 

c o 

(X)4-' 

o c 

OI 

z 

teed  M 
Lnalysi 

o 

'C 

o 

Xi 

n 

tc 

o 

.c 

H 

inimur 

s 

W 

a; 

11 

i-g. 

<< 

Potash 

i 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Locke  <&  Black,  Swcdesboro,  N.  J. — Continued. 

No.  1 High  Grade  Potato,  Onion  and  Early  Truck 

3.70 

4.50 

9.00 

8.00 

No.  5 Special  Early  Tomato  & Asparagus  Grower, 

4.10 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

No.  7 Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer  Swedesboro  Choice, 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

5.00 

No.  4 Special  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

No.  2 White  Potato  and  General  Crop  Grower,  . . 

2.46 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

No.  1^2  Special  White  Potato 

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Frederick  Liidlam  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Sickle  Fertilizer  No.  1,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Sir*irlp  Fprtiliy.pr  No  4,  1916  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Sickle  Fertilizer  No.  5,  1916 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Palmetto  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Cereal  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

A.  B.  F,  Fertilizer,  1916,  Revised,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

•General  Fertilizer 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Cecrops  Fertilizer,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Cecrops  Complete 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

The  3Iai»es  Formula  <&  Peruvian  Guano  Co.,  New 

York  City. 

Mapes  General  Crop  (1916  Brand),  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

8.00 

Map*^*^  FIy*^  Ppr  Cpnt  Arrunnrtia.  Special,  

4.12 

5.00 

10.00 

8.00 

Mapes  C S Special  (without  Potash),  

4.12 

5.00 

4.00 

4.00 

Mapes  Corn  Manure  (1916  Brand),  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Mapes  Potato  Manure  (1916  Brand),  

3.71 

4.50 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Mapes  Tobacco  Starter,  Improved 

4.12 

5.00 

8.00 

6.00 

1.00 

W ill.  Henry  3Iaule,  Inc.,  Philadeliiliia,  Pa. 

Panmure  Plant  Food,  1919 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

.'Vlitchell  Fertilixer  Co.,  Tremley,  N.  J. 

TVTi  t/-'Vipl  1 ’c  14c/  Acirl  PVinsnhate  ! 

15.00 

14.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Lawn  Dressing  Fertilizer,  Re- 

vised 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Lettuce  Fertilizer,  1916,  Revised 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Celery  Fertilizer,  1916,  Revised 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Vegetable  Fertilizer,  1916,  Re- 

vised 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Cabbage  Fertilizer,  1916,  Re- 

vised 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Corn  Fertilizer,  1916,  Revised, 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Tomato  Fertilizer,  1916,  Revised 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell’s  Special  Asparagus  Fertilizer,  1916,  Re- 



2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Mitchell's  Special  Lawn  Dressing  Fertilizer,  1916, 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


23 


G 

c 

<D 

be 

o 

Guarani 

J. 

1 d 
ri’S 

c o 

(D-M 

faC4-> 

o s 

t-i  0) 

z 

teed  M 
Lnalysi 

o 

.cl 

a 

M 

o 

P 

“5-1 

Available  Phos-  1 5‘  I 

phoric  Acid  g 

5 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Mitchell  Fertilizer  Co.,  Tremley,  N.  J. — Continued. 

Mitchell’s  Potato  Fertilizer,  1916,  Revised,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Monmouth  County  Farmers^  Fxchange,  Freehold, 

N.  J. 

14.80 

18.00 

Sulphate  Ammonia 

20.50 

25.00 

Acid  Phosphate,  

16.00 

16.00 

Potash  (Jesse  Lake) 

27.00 

1.64 

2.00 

22.00 

5.35 

6.50 

9.00 

Triangle  Brand  2-11-0,  

1.64 

2.00 

12.00 

11.00 

Triangle  Brand  4-10-0,  

3.29 

4,00 

11.00 

10.00 

Triangle  Brand  4-8-3 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Joseph  R.  3Ioore,  Swedesboro,  N.  J. 

J.  R.  Moore’s  King  Crab,  

9.87 

12.00 

J.  R.  Moore’s  5^^  Tankage 

4.53 

5.50 

15.00 

J.  R.  Me  ore’s  7^  Tankage,  

5.76 

7.00 

5.00 

J.  R.  Moore’s  8^  Tankage 

6.50 

8.00 

7.00 

Moore’s  2-12-0  Sweet  Potato  Manure,  

1,65 

2.00 

12.00 

12.00 

Moore’s  4.10,0  Potato  Manure,  

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Moore’s  Asparagus  and  Truck  Manure  5-10-0,  . . 

4.12 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Moore’s  1-9-3  Sweet  Potato  Manure,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

9.00 

3.00 

J,  R.  Moore’s  High  Grade  Potash  Sweet  Potato 

Manure 

0.86 

1.00 

8.00 

8.00 

5.00 

"Potn  tr»  IVTaniire  

1,65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

J.  R.  Moore’s  Early  Truck  and  Potato  Manure,  . . 

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Moore’s  Superior  Potato  and  Truck  Manure 

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

J.  R.  Moore’s  Baxter  Special  Tomato  Manure,  . . 

3,71 

5.50 

7.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Moore’s  Baxter  Improved  Tomato  Manure,  

4.12 

5.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Nassau  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Snliihle  "Pbospbatf*,  

15.00 

14.00 

’pTig-Vi  (T-rflflp  Snpp.rphospha  to,  

17.00 

16.00 

Buckwheat  Special,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Old  Hickory,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Common  Sense  Fertilizer,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Amm'^’^’^^'^*^  Potato  Compound,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Ammoniated  Truck  Producer,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Wheat  and  Grass  Grower,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

General  Crop  Fertilizer 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Special  Mixture,  1916 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

General  Favorite  Fish  Mixture 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Plow  Brand,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Big  Yield,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Nassau  Special,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

24 


BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Xassau  Fertilizer  Co.,  New  York  City — Continued. 

Gladiator  Truck  and  Potato,  Revised 

National  Plant  Food  Co.,  Fan  Claire,  Wis. 

Red  Snapper 

Natural  Guano  Co.,  Aurora,  111. 

“Sheep’s  Head”  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure,  

Albert  Nelson,  Allentown,  N.  .1. 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  

Nelson’s  14^  Acid  Phosphate 

Nelson’s  16^  Acid  Phosphate 

Nelson’s  Special  R.  & W.  Guano,  

Nelson’s  Special  G.  & G.  Guano 

Nelson’s  Special  Corn  Guano 

Nelson’s  Special  Potato  Grower 

Nelson’s  Superior  Potato  Grower,  

Nelson  s Special  Pish  and  Potash, 

Nelson’s  Special  Potato  Fertilizer 

Nelson’s  High  Grade  Potato  Phosphate,  

Nelson’s  Superior  Potato  Guano 

N.  ,1.  Fertilizer  and  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Ground  Dried  Blood 

Nitrate  of  Soda 

Sulphate  of  Ammonia,  

Acid  Phosphate  14^  APA,  

Acid  Phosphate  16^  APA 

Precipated  Bone,  

Ground  Steamed  Bone,  1 and  60 

Ground  Steamed  Bone,  2 and  60 

Ground  Steamed  Bone,  3 and  50,  

Ground  Tankage  7^  and  15<^  BPL 

Ground  Tankage  9^  and  20^  BPL, 

Tobacco  Dust 

Croxton  Prepared  Poultry  Manure,  

Croxton  War  Special 

Croxton  Special  Garden  Fertilizer 

Croxton  Complete  Truck  Guano,  

Croxton  Special  Lawn  Fertilizer 

New  York  Stable  Manure  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

Dried  Ground  Manure,  Compost-Diamond  Brand, 
I’atapseo  Guano  Co.,  New  York  City. 

Patapsco  Pure  Dissolved  S.  C.  Phosphate,  

Patapsco  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate, 

Patapsco  Ammoniated  Compound 

Patapsco  Golden  Crop  Fertilizer,  1916 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


3.29 


5.00 


2.25 


14.82 


0.82 

1.65 

1.65 

3.29 

4.12 

1.65 

3.29 

3.29 

4.12 

13.16 

14.80 

20.56 


I .JS 
aj  C 
> O 

•3S 

c o 
o c 

tv 


4.00 


6.00 


2.73 


18.00 


1.00 

2.00 

2.00 

4.00 

5.00 

2.00 
4.00 

4.00 

5.00 

16.00 

18.00 

25.00 


0.82 

1.65 

2.46| 

5.751 

7.40| 

1.65| 

3.35| 

3.30| 

3.30| 

3.35 

5.00 

2.06 


0.82 

1.65 


1.00 

2.00 

3.00 

7.00 

9.00 

2.00 
4.05 
4.00 

4.00 
4.05 

6.00 

2.50 


1.00 

2.00 


11.00 


12.00 


1.25 


15.00 

17.00 

10.00 
11.00 
11.00 

9.00 

9.00 

10.00 

9.00 

9.00 

9.00 


Cu  ^ 

V 

S-n 

5:; 


% 


10.00 


4.00 


1.00 


14.00 

16.00 

9.00 
10.00 
10.00 

8.00 
•8.00 
8.50 
8.00 
8.00 
8.00 


15.00 

17.00 

30.00 
27.46 
27.46 
22.89 

6.87 

9.15 


2.00 

8.00 

9.00 

9.00 

9.00 

1.79 

15.00 

17.00 

11.00 
11.00 


14.00 

16.00 
26.00 


8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.50 

14.00 

16.00 
10.00 
10.00 


3.00 


1.25 


1.50 


1.00 

2.00 

3.00 

2.00 


2.00 

1.00 

1.00 

2.00 

5.00 

2.00 

1.00 


FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 


25 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31.  1919 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva-  ! 
lent  to  Ammonia' 

Total  Phosphoric  | 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

' % 

% 

% 

% 

Patapsco  Guano  Co.,  New  York  City — 

Patapsco  Truckers’  Delight,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Patapsco  Early  Market  Garden,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Patapsco  Diamond  Truck  Manure,  1919 

4.11 

' 5.00 

9.00 

8.00 



5.76 

7.00 

7.00 

6.00 

Coon  Brand  Guano,  1916,  Revised,  

0.82 

1 l.OOj 

1 10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Patapsco  Pish  Guano,  1916,  Revised,  

0.82 

1.00 

1 11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Grange  Mixture,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

1 10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Patapsco  Special  Prolific  Potato  Phosphate,  .... 

3.29 

4.00| 

I 11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Philadelphia  Guano  Works,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

Pure  Ground  Bone 

2.46 

3.00 

1 23.00 

1919  Wheat  and  Grass  Grower,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

Grain  Superphosphate,  

1 0.82 

1.00 

1 10.00 

1 13.00 

12.00 

1919  Corn  and  Vegetable  Manure 

I 1.64 

2.00 

1 11.00 

10.00 

Acidulated  Animal  Compound 

1.64 

2.00 

15.00 

10.00 

1919  B Brand  for  Potatoes  and  Truck 

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1919  A Brand  for  Potatoes  and  Truck 

3.30 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1919  Truckers’  Pride,  

4.12 

5.00 

1 9.00 

8.00 

1919  Standard  Truck  Guano,  

4.12 

5.00 

1 11.00 

10.00 

1919  Sweet  Potato  Manure 

1.64 

2.00 

1 9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1919  High  Grade  Potato  Manure 

3.30 

4.00 

1 9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

1919  Extra  Potato  Manure,  

3.30 

4.00 

1 9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

New  Jersey  Potato  Special 

3.30 

4.00 

1 • 9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

1919  Truck  Guano,  

j 4.12 

5.00 

7.00 

6.00 

1.00 

Special  Mixtures,  in  accordance  with  ruling  of 

1 

1 

State  Chemist. 

1 

1 

The  Pulverized  Manure  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

1 

1 

Wizard  Brand  Manure,  

I 1.80 

1 2.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

Rasin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

1 

Rasin’s  Acid  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00 

Rasin’s  16^  Acid  Phosphate,  

i 

17.00 

16.00 

Rasin’s  Special  Alkaline  Mixture 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Rasin’s  Phosphate  and  Potash,  Revised,  

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Rasin’s  Phosphate  and  Potash  Fertilizer, 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  Mixture 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Rasin’s  Special  Crop  Preparation,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Rasin’s  Special  Fish  Guano,  

1.65 

2.00 

12.00 

11.00 

"plrppirp  Snpprphnspba  te,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Rasin’s  Potato  and  Vegetable  Fertilizer,  

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Rasin’s  Potato  and  Truck  Compound,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Rasin’s  Truck  Ammoniated  Superphosphate 

4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Rasin’s  Jersey  Potato  Guano 

4.12 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Wm.  Penn  Crop  Grower 

0,82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Rasin’s  United  Grain  Grower 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

26 


BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Rasin-Monumental  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. — Continued. 

Rasin’s  All  Crop  Guano,  

Rasin’s  Empire  Guano,  . . . ; 

Rasin’s  Royal  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture 

Rasin’s  Emergency  Royal  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture 

Rasin’s  Universal  Crop  Manure 

Rasin’s  Empire  Guano  Special,  Revised,  

Rasin's  Empire  Guano  Special 

Rasin’s  Potato  and  Vegetable  Guano 

Rasin’s  High  Grade  Potato  and  Truck  Manure, 

Revised 

Rasin’s  Champion  Potato  and  Vegetable  Manure, 

Rasin’s  Potato  and  Truck  Manure 

Rasin’s  Special  Potato  and  Truck  Fertilizer,  .... 

Rasin’s  Truck  and  Vegetable  Manure,  

Rasin’s  Truck  and  Vegetable  Special,  

Rasin’s  Electric  Truck  and  Vegetable  Manure,  . , 
Reading  Bone  Fertilixer  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

Nitrate  of  Soda 

14%  Clear  Acid  Phosphate,  

16%  Clear  Acid  Phosphate,  

Pure  Bone  Meal 

Animal  Tankage 

Reading  Special  Grain  and  Grass  Producer, 

Dissolved  Animal  Matter,  

Reading  Special  Potato  and  Tobacco  Manure,  , . . 

Reading  All  Crop  Special 

Animal  Tankage  Mixture,  

Reading  Prize  Winner,  

Reading  Four  and  Eight 

High  Grade  Truck  Food,  

Reading  One  Ten  and  One 

Blood  Meat  and  Potash  Mixture 

Reading  Four  Eight  and  Three,  

Reading  Chemical  Co.,  Reading,  Pa. 

Reading  Clear  Acid  Phosphate, 

High  Grade  Phosphate 

Farmers  Meat  Mixture 

Farmers  Favorite 

Reading  Soil  Builder, 

Pennant  Winner 

Complete  Fertilizer 

Old  Standard 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 
lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

.c 

m 

oS 

O 

d. 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

5.00 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

1.65 

2.00 

9.50 

8.50 

1.00 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

5.00 

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

2.47 

3.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

LOO 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

15.00 

18.00 

15.00 

14.00 

17.00 

16.00 

2.46 

3.00 

23.00 

5.75 

7.00 

9.00 

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

7.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

0.82 

1.00 

13.00 

12.00 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.64 

2.00 

15.00 

14.00 

2.46 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.29 

4.00 

13.00 

12.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

15.00 

14.00 

17.00 

16.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

0,82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 


27 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


1 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 
lent to  Ammonii 

Total  Phosphoric 
Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Robert  A.  Reiehard,  Allentown,  Pa. 

15.00 

14.00 

American  Eagle  Phosphate 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

2.88 

3.50 

22.00 

3.70 

4.50 

23.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.64 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

Ideal  Truck  Phosphate,  

3.28 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Farmers’  Choice  Phosphate 

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

7.00 

1.00 

Surpass  Phosphate j 

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Special  Manure,  

3.28 

4.00 

7.00 

6.00 

2.00 

Ruokman  Bros.,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 

Acid  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00 

Ground  Bone,  

2.47 

3.00 

20.00 

Special  Grain  Grower,  

2.47 

3.00 

12.00 

10.00 

Phosphate  and  Tankage,  

3.29 

4.00 

12.00 

6.00 

Five  and  Eight,  

4.11 

5.00 

10.00 

8.00 

Schanck,  Hutchinson  & Field,  Hightstow’n,  N.  J.  i 

S.  H.  and  F.  Corn  Mixture,  2-8-0,  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

S.  H.  and  F.  Potato  and  Truck  Manure,  4-8-0,  . . 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

S.  H.  and  F.  Potato  and  Vegetable  Compound, 

4-10-0 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Special  Fish  Mixture  for  Potatoes,  4-6-2, 

3.29 

4.00 

7.00' 

6.00 

2.00 

Davison’s  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture  for  Potatoes, 

4-8-3 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Special  Fish  Mixture  for  Potatoes  and  Vegetables, 

4-10-2 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

2.00 

The  Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Flkton,  Md. 

Nitrate  of  Soda | 

15.23 

18.50 

Scott’s  Tip  Top  Soluble  Phosphate,  

15.00 

14.00 

Scott’s  Tip  Top  Soluble  Phosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

Scott  s Soluble  Phosphate  and  Potash,  

14.00 

12.00 

2.00 

Scott’s  Pure  Bone  Meal,  

2.50 

3.00 

23.00 

Scott’s  Ground  Raw  Bone,  

3.70 

4.50 

21.00 

Ground  Tankage,  

4.94 

6.00 

9.16 

Scott’s  Special  Grain  Grower 

0.82 

1.00 

12.00 

10.00 

Scott’s  Crop  Grower,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

8.00 

Scott’s  Ammoniated  Base,  

1.65 

2.00 

14.00 

12.00 

Scott’s  Ammoniated  Superphosphate,  

3.30 

4.00 

12.00 

10.00 

Scott’s  Pennsylvania  Potato  Grower,  . . . . i 

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Scott’s  Sure  Growth  Superphosphate,  1919 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Scott’s  Victory  Brand 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Scott’s  Potato  Grower,  1919 

1.65 

2.00 

12.00 

10.00 

1.00 

28 


BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen 

O 

c 

Nitrogen  Equiva-  ^ 

lent  to  Ammonia 



eed  M 
.nalysij 

. o 

o 

ft 

m 

o 

3 

Available  Phos-  5’ 

phobic  Acid  § 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

The  Scott  Fertilizer  Co.,  Flkton,  Md.— Continued. 

Scott’s  Sure  Growth  Compound,  1919,  

3.30 

4.00 

12.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Special  Mixtures  in  accordance  with  ruling  of 

State  Chemist. 

Searfii,  Roebuck  & Co.,  Chicago,  Hi. 

15.50 

18.25 

16.50 

16.00 

Reputation  Acid  Phosphate 

20.50 

20.00 

1.60 

2.00 

10.00 

2.50 

3.00 

10.00 

4.10 

5.00 

11.00 

Reputation  Truck  and  Garden  Fertilizer, 

4.10 

5.00 

12.00 

11.00 

M.  Li.  Shoemaker  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa, 

Pure  Raw  Bone  Meal,  

3.30 

4.00 

20.00 

Swift  Sure  Guano  for  Tomatoes,  Truck  and  Corn, 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

9.00 

Swift  Sure  Superphosphate  for  Tobacco  and  Gen- 

eral Use,  

3.30 

4.00 

12.00 

9.00 

Swift  Sure  Bone  Meal,  

5.14 

6.25 

20.00 

10.00 

Harry  L.  Sickel,  Woodbui*y,  N.  J. 

Sickel’s  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer,  2-10-0 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Sickel  s Fertilizer  for  Sweet  Potatoes,  2-12-0,  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

12.00 

12.00 

Sirkcl’!:!  Truckers’  Fs.vnrite  .^-1 0-0,  

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Sickel’s  Good  for  All  Crops  Fertilizer,  4-10-0,  . . 

3.30 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Sickel’.s  Asparagus  Fertilizer,  R-l  0-0,  

4.12 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Sickel’s  Best  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer,  1-9-3,  .... 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

9.00 

3.00 

Sickel’s  High  Grade  for  Sweet  Potatoes,  2-8-2,  . . . 

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Sickel’s  2-10  with  Potash,  2-10-1 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sickel’s  White  Potato  Fertilizer,  4-8-1 

3.30 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Sickel’s  White  Potato  Special  with  Potash,  4-8-3, 

3.30 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Sickel’s  Early  Crop  Fertilizer,  5-8-1 

4.12 

5.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

South  Jersey  Farmers^  Exchange,  Woodstown,  N.  J. 

1 

rirniinrl  TCing  Crab  

10.25 

12.50 

Mi  t rate  .*^nfla  

15.00 

18.50 

Acid  Phosphate  

17.00 

16.00 

E 2^  Exchange  Sweet  Potato, 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

D Exchange  Grain  and  Grass,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

C F.vehange  (T-eneral  Use,  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Steamed  Bone  

2.46 

3.00 

22.00 

8.00 

Iilvehanpe  PTigh  C-rade  Potato  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Raw  Ground  Bone,  

3.29 

4.00 

20.00 

5.00 

A Exchange  High  Grade  Potato  and  Truck 

4.12 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

F Exchange  Special  Asparagus,  

4.92 

6.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Tr^f^rly  T'nmatn  

6.33 

6.50 

9.00 

8.00 

Armiial  T'ankape  

6.74 

7.00 

12.00 

6.00 

t troll  ml  Fish  Scrap  

9.02 

11.00 

6.00 

2.50 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


29 


Nitrogen  | 

! o 

luaram 

A 

1 ■- 

si  C 
o 

"5  S 

c o 

biC+^ 

o c 
u <a 

z 

teed  M 
Lnalysi 

o 

x: 

2, 

m 

o 

j:: 

'^'3 

inimun 

s 

’ji 

%'S. 

<u 

If 

■S-S 
> " 

< 

1 

c 

% 

% 

% 

1 % 

% 

South  Jersey  Farmers’  Ex.,  Woodstown,  X.  J. — Cont. 

E 5^  Exchange  Special  Sweet  Potato,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

5.00 

B 2%  Exchange  High  Grade  White  Potato,  .... 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

B 3^  Exchange  Special  White  Potato 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Standard  Guano  Co.,  Baltimore,  3Id. 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Standard  Farmers’ 

2.46 

3.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Standard  Keystone 

3.28 

4.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Standard  Royal  Gem, 

4.10 

5.00 

10.50 

10.00 

Grange  Commercial  Store  Standard  Royal  Crop 

Grower '. 

3.28 

4.00 

8.50 

8.00 

4.00 

Swift  & Company,  Kearny,  N.  J. 

! 

Swift’s  Garden  City  Phosphate,  

14.00 

14.00 

Swift's  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate, 

16.00 

16.00 

Swift’s  Gpig’Pilatinizpd  BnnPi  Fertili!>:ftr  

0.82 

1.00 

30.00 

Swift’.s  Stea.med  Bone  Fertilizer,  

1.65 

2.00 

28.00 

Swift’s  Wheat  and  R.ve  Grower,  

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Swift’s  Special  Corn  Grower,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Swift’s  Truck  and  Potato  Fei'tilizer,  j 

1 3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Swift’s  Special  Harrison  Formula, 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Swift’s  Long  Island  Favorite  Fertilizer,  

1 

4.11 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

IVTammoth  Potato  Grower,  I 

' 4.11 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Swift’s  Special  Long  Island  Fertilizer,  

4.94 

6.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Swift’s  Top  Dresser  Formula,  No.  1,  

5.76 

7.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Swift’.s  TiOng  Island  Top  Dresser,  

8.23 

10.00 

7.00 

7.00 

Swift’s  Reliable  Grain  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Truck  and  Vegetable  Fertilizer,  

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Swift’s  Red  Steer,  

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Special  Potato  Fertilizer 

2.47 

3.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

N.  Y.  State  Potato  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

White  Potato  Fertilizer 

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Swift's  Market  Garden  Manure,  

3.29 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Round  Potato  Fertilizer 

4.11 

5.00 

8.00 

8.00 

4.00 

Taylor  Brothers,  Camden,  N.  J. 

T B Superior  Ammoniated  Phosphate,  

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

High  Grade  Potato  Phosphate 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

The  Taylor  Provision  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

John  Taylor’s  Standard  Grain  Grower,  No.  2,  . . 

0.82 

1.00 

13.00 

12.00 

John  Taylor’s  P.  D.  B.,  Revised 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

John  Taylor’s  High  Grade  Corn  and  Truck  Ma- 

nure, Revised,  No.  2,  

2.46 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

John  Taylor’s  High  Grade  Potato  and  Truck  Fer- 

tilizer, Revised,  No.  2,  

3.30 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

John  Taylor’s  Reliable  Potato  Manure 

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


30 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


. 

ce  c 
t>  o 

"3  S 

eg 

fl  o 

<D+J 
bll+J 
O G 

Si  O) 


o 

Xi 

'O 


m 

cu 

0) 

II 


Tennessee  Coal,  Iron  & Railroad  Co.,  Birming^ham, 
Alabama. 

14^  Duplex  Basic  Phosphate 

Duplex  Basic  Phosphate,  

I.  P.  Thomas  &.  Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Ground  King  Crab 

Dried  Ground  Blood 

Nitrate  Soda,  

Sulphate  of  Ammonia,  

S.  C.  Phosphate . 

16^  Acid  Phosphate, 

Potash 

Alkaline  Fertilizer,  

Thomas  Potash  Mixture,  

Raw  and  Acidulated  Bone 

Pure  Ground  Bone 

Pure  Ground  Animal  Bone 

Bone  Tankage 

Thomas  Triumph  Manure,  

Sweet  Potato  Substitute,  

Thomas’  Wheat  and  Corn  Guano,  

Farmers’  Choice  Fertilizer 

Dong  Island  Special,  4-10-0,  

Fish  Guano 

High  Grade  Ammoniated  Fertilizer,  

Crude  Fish 

7<^  Guano 

Superior  Superphosphate 

Grain  Special  Fertilizer 

I.  P.  Thomas  1-8-5  Fertilizer 

Improved  Fertilizer 

Victor  Potash  Fertilizer 

Champion  Guano 

I.  P.  Thomas  2-8-2  Fertilizer,  

Tip  Top  Fertilizer,  . .* 

Truckers’  High  Grade  Manure,  

I.  P.  Thomas  4-8-2  Fertilizer 

I.  P.  Thomas  4-8-3  Fertilizer 

Special  Mixtures  in  accordance  with  ruling  of 
State  Chemist. 

Trenton  Bone  FertilbBer  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

Tankage 

Tankage,  

Nitrate  Soda 


% 


% 


14.00 

18.00 


9.87 

14.00 

15.21 

20.50 


12.00 

17.00 
18.50 

25.00 


14.50 

16.50 


1.65 

2.46 

3.70 

4.90 

0.82 

1.65 

1.65 

2.45 

3.25 

4.10 

4.90 

5.75 

5.75 

0.82 

0.82 

0.82 

0.82 

0.82 

1.65 

1.65 

2.45 

3.25 

3.25 

3.25 


4.92 

6.56 

14.80 


2.00 

3.00 
4.50 

6.00 
1.00 
2.00 
2.00 

3.00 

4.00 

5.00 

6.00 

7.00 

7.00 

1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
2.00 
2.00 

3.00 

4.00 
4.00 
4.00 


6.00 

8.00 

18.00 


10.50 

12.50 

17.00 

23.00 

23.00 

13.00 

10.50 
10.50 
10.50 
10.50 
10.50 
10.50 

8.50 

4.00 

8.50 

7.50 

8.50 
8.50 

10.50 

12.50 
8.50 
8.50 
8.50 
8.50 
8.50 
8.50 


14.00 

16.00 


10.00 

12.00 


10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

8.00 

3.00 

8.00 

7.00 

8.00 
8.00 

10.00 

12.00 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 


28.00 

2.00 

1.00 


1.00 

2.00 

5.00 

1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
2.00 
1.00 
1.00 
2.00 
3.00 


FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 


31 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


G 

0) 

be 

o 

z 

c 

1 Nitrogen  Equiva-  ^ 

1 lent  to  Ammonia  fa 

1 3 

teed  M 
^nalysi 

0 

0 

4: 

a 

w 

0 

:inimur 

s 

m 

n,  y 

y 

11 

.a 

3 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Trenton  Bone  Fert.  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J. — Cont. 

17.00 

16.00 

Trenton  Ground  Steamed  Bone 

2.46 

3.00 

23.00 

2.46 

3.00 

23.00 

Trenton  Pure  Ground  Bone,  

3.28 

4.00 

23.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Special  Grain 

1.64 

2.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Farmers’  Co-Operative  Ass’n,  2-10-0, 

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

2.05 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

2.46 

3.00 

12.00 

11.00 

Farmers’  Co-Operative  Ass’n,  Grain  and  Grass,  . . 

2.46 

3.00 

12.00 

1 11.00 

4-8  Potato,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4-10  Potato,  

3.28 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Borden’s  Fish  Mixture,  

4.10 

5.00 

6.00 

5.00 

5-8  Potato,  

4.10 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

Truck  and  Cabbage,  

6.56 

8.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4-8-1  Potato,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

4-8-2  Potato,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

4-8-3  Potato 

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Farmers’  Co-Operative  Ass’n,  4-8-3  Potato,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Farmers’  Co-Operative  Ass’n,  4-8-5  Potato,  

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

5.00 

4-8-5  Potato 

3.28 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

5.00 

4-10-3  Potato,  

3.28 

■4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Special  Mixtures  in  accordance  with  ruling  of 

State  Chemist. 

F.  VV.  Tunnell  & Co.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

70/^  Tankage,  

5.77 

7.00 

1012  Mixture 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

1013  Mixture 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Pure  Ground  Bone,  

2.46 

3.00 

23.00 

Crude  Fish  and  Manure,  

3.30| 

4.00 

3.00 

7%  Fish,  

5.77I 

7.00 

7.00 

Wheat  Grower,  

1 

0.82! 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

Grain  Manure,  

1 

0.82 

1.00 

13.00 

12.00 

1919  Fish  Manure,  

1.64! 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1919  Potato  and  Vegetable  Manure,  

1.64 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Raw  and  Acidulated  Animal  Compound,  

1.64 

2.00 

15.00 

10.00 

1919  No.  2 Potato  and  Truck  Manure 

2.46] 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Burlington  Truck  Manure 

3.301 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1Q1Q  "NTn  1 Pntato  and  Triie.k  Manure  

3.30] 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1919  Lighting  Guano, 

4.12I 

5.00] 

9.00 

8.00 

T.nng^  Island  Tnieker,  

4.12! 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1919  Sweet  Potato  Guano,  No.  2 

1 

0.82| 

i.ool 

9.00] 

8.00| 

4.00 

32 


BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Nitrogen 

0 ■ 

Nitrogen  Equiva-  ^ 

lent  to  Ammonia  P ' 

eed  M 
.nalysis 

o 

.c 

a 

o 

h 

3 

Available  Phos-  a 

phoric  Acid  § 

3 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

P.  W.  Tunnell  C'o.,  Inc.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. — Cont. 

1919  Sweet  Potato  Manure,  

1.64 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1919  Pride  of  Jersey, 

3.30 

4.00 

8.00 

7.00 

2.00 

1919  Jersey  Potato  Manure 

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Monmouth’s  Pride  Potato  Manure 

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1919  Special  Potato  Manure,  

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Excelsior  Potato  Manure 

3.30 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

4.00 

1919  Truck  Manure 

4.12 

5.00 

7.00 

6.00 

1.00 

Superior  Truck  Grower 

4.12 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Special  Mixtures  in  accordance  with  ruling  of 

State  Chemist. 

The  J.  E.  Tygei'f  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1 

14^  Acid  Phosphate,  

1 

15.00 

14.00 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  A,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AA 

1 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AAA,  

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Great  Advancer  Phosphate,  1916,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Tygert’s  5-10-0  Fertilizer 

4.11 

5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

Golden  Harvest  Phosphate,  1916 

1 0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Welcome  Brand  Fertilizer,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Quaker  Special  Fertilizer,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Sweet  Potato  Guano,  1916,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Standard  Fertilizer,  

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Vegetable  and  Corn  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Old  Reliable  Phosphate,  1916 

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Special  Potato  and  Tomato  Guano,  1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Paramount  Potato  and  Truck  Manure,  1918 

3.29 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Early  Truck  Guano,  1916 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Ten  Per  Cent.  Guano,  

8.23 

10.00 

6.00 

5.00 

1.00 

Union  Chemical  Works,  Ine.,  North  Wales,  Pa. 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  

15.58 

19.00 

Acid  Phosphate,  

14.00 

14.00 

Acid  Phosphate  16^,  

16.00 

16.00 

Bone  Meal,  

2.46 

3.00 

22.00 

Raw  Bone  Meal 

3.69 

4.50 

21.00 

Ground  Tankage,  

4.92 

6.00 

9.15 

One  Eight  Mixture,  

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Two  Eight  Mixture 

1.64 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

Two  Ten  Mixture  

1.64 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Three  Ten  Mixture,  

2.46 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Corn  Grower,  

0.82 

1.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Farmers’  Favorite 

1.64 

2.00 

6.00 

6.00 

2.00 

Truck  Grower 

1.64 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Potato  Manure,  

2.46 

3.00 

6.00 

6.00 

1.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


33 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

1 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

Vfrg^inia-Carollna  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City, 

Dried  Fish 

8.23 

10.00 

8.23 

10.00 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  

14.81 

18.00 

15.00 

14.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate,  

17.00 

16.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Bone  Meal,  

2.47 

3.00 

22.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Little  Giant  Fertilizer  (with  2^ 

1 

Potash) 

10.00 

9.00 

2.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Giant  Phosphate  and  Potash 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Universal  Fertilizer  for  All  Crops 

(without  Potash),  

0.82 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  for 

All  Crops,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  High  Grade  Ammoniated  Bone 

Phosphate,  

1.65 

2.00 

13.00 

12.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  High  Grade  Corn  and  Vegetable 

Compound  (without  Potash) 

2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Double  Owl  Brand  Potato  and! 

i 1 

Truck  Fertilizer  (without  Potash),  

3.29 

1 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

C.  & B.  XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Potato  Manure 

1 

(without  Potash),  

3.29| 

4.00 

9.00 

8.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  20th  Century  Potato  Manure  (with- 

out Potash),  

4. Ill 

1 5.00 

11.00 

10.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Truckers’ Mixture  (without  Potash) 

4.94 

6.001 

9.00 

8.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Plow  Brand  Fertilizer 

0.821 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Universal  Fertilizer  for  All  Crops, 

0.82] 

1.00 

10.00 

9.00 

3.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Mixture, 

1.65i 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Soluble  Guano,  

1.65j 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Owl  Brand  Potato  and  Truck  Fer- 

1 

tilizer  (with  3%  Potash),  

1.65j 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  High  Grade  Corn  and  Vegetable 

! 

1 

I 

Compound  (with  1^  Potash) | 

2.47! 

3.00i 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Double  Owl  Brand  Potato  and 

j 

Truck  Fertilizer  (with  1^  Potash) 

3.29i 

4.00 

9.00, 

8.00] 

1.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  Double  Owl  Brand  Potato  and 

1 

Truck  Fertilizer  (with  3^  Potash),  

3.29; 

4.001 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

C.  & B.  XXXX  Fish  and  Potash  Manure  (with 

1 

1 

3%  Potash),  

3.29| 

4.001 

9.00 

8.00 

3.00 

V.-C.  C.  Co.’s  20th  Century  Potato  Manure  (with 

1 

Potash) 

4.11| 

s.ool 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

The  Van  Iderstine  Co.,  Long  I.sland  City,  N.  Y.  j 

I 

i 

Van  Iderstine’s  Pure  Ground  Bone 

2.00 

2.43| 

27.00 

34 


BULLETIN  335 


Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


The  Emil  Wahl  3Ifs:.  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Emil  Wahl  Mfg.  Co.'s  Warranted  Pure  Philadel- 
phia Button  Bone  Meal 

J.  A.  W'enderoth,  Camden,  N.  J. 

Ground  Steamed  Bone,  

The  West  Jersey  Marl  & Transportation  Co.,  Wood- 
bury, N.  J. 

Tankage  6^,  

Tankage  7%,  

Tankage  8^,  

Nitrate  Soda,  

Acid  Phosphate  (14^),  

Acid  Phosphate  (16%),  

Fine  Bone  Meal,  

Pure  Bone  Meal,  Revised,  1919 

Pure  Bone  Flour,  Revised,  1919 

Pure  Ground  Bone 

Dry  Ground  Fish 

Brand  2-10-0 

Dissolved  Bone,  

Brand  3-10-0 

Brand  4-10-0 

Brand  5-10-0 

Special  Sweet  Potato  Manure,  Revised,  1919,  .... 

Tomato  and  Potato  Manure,  Revised,  1919,  

Brand  2-10-1 

All-Crop  Mixture,  Revised,  1919,  

High  Grade  Truck  Manure 

Early  Potato  Manure 

Brand  4-10-3 

Asparagus  Manure,  

W.  E.  Whann  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Liberty  Brand  Super- 
phosphate A,  

AVhann’s  Chester  Valley  XXX  Ammoniated  Fer- 
tilizer,   

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Liberty  Brand  Super- 
phosphate AA,  

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Liberty  Brand  Super- 
phosphate AAA,  

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Liberty  Brand  Super- 
phosphate AAAA,  

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Truck  Manure 


Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

% 

3.75 

4.50 

25.00 

2.46 

3.00 

20.00 

4.94 

6.00 

5.75 

7.00 

6.58 

8.00 

15.23 

18.00 

14.00 

14.00 

16.00 

16.00 

2.47 

3.00 

22.00 

3.30 

4.00 

18.30 

3.30 

4.00 

18.30 

3.30 

4.00 

18.30 

8.23 

10.00 

6.85 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

2.05 

2.50 

14.00 

14.00 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

3.30 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

4.12 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

9.00 

3.00 

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

1.65 

2.00 

10.00 

10.00 

1.00 

3.28 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

3.28 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

3.28 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

3.00 

4.10 

5.00 

8.00 

8.00 

1.00 

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 



2.47 

3.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

FERTILIZER  REGISTRATIONS  FOR  1919 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


35 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 


Nitrogen 

1 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 
lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 
Acid  i 

Available  Phos- 
phoric Acid 

Potash 

% 

% 

% 

% 

VV.  E.  Whann  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. — Continued. 

1 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Special  Ammoniated  Su- 

perphosphate,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  General  Crop 

0.82 

1.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Available  Ammoniated 

Superphosphate,  1916,  

0.82 

1.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  No.  2 Ammoniated  Su- 

1 

perphosphate,  1916,  

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  John  Whann  Son’s  Sweet 

Potato  Fertilizer,  1916 

1.23 

1.50 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Standard  Fertilizer 

1.65 

2.00 

9.00 

8.00 

2.00 

Whann  s Chester  Valley  Fish  and  Potash  Fer- 

tilizei*,  1916,  

1.65 

2.00 

11.00 

10.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Potato  and  Truck  Spe- 

cial, 1916,  

2.06 

2.50 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Special  Potato  and  Truck 

Fertilizer,  1916 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  High  Grade  Truck  Ma- 

nure, 1916 

3.29 

4.00 

10.00 

9.00 

1.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Potash  Mixture  for  Po- 

tatoes and  Truck,  

3.29 

4.00 

11.00 

10.00 

3.00 

Whann’s  Chester  Valley  Cabbage  and  Cauliflower 

Manure,  1916,  

4.11 

5.00 

9.00 

8.00 

1.00 

William  Wilde,  Vineland,  N.  J. 

Nitrate  Soda,  

15.00 

18.20 

Acid  Phosphate 

16.00 

16.00 

Steamed  Bone,  

2.47 

3.00 

22.00 

Ground  Bone 

3.65 

4.50 

22.00 

Tankage 

4.90 

6.00 

13.00 

Tankage,  

6.90 

8.50 

8.00 

Common  Sweet  Potato 

2.47 

3.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Truck  Fertilizer,  

3.25 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Strawberry  Dressing 

3.25 

4.00 

10.00 

10.00 

High  Grade  Truck 

4.10 

5.00 

10.00 

10.00 

2^  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer 

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

2.00 

3^  Sweet  Potato  Fertilizer 

1.65 

2.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

Best  White  Potato, 

3.25 

4.00 

8.00 

8.00 

3.00 

S.  Winterbottom,  Egg  Harbor  City,  N.  J. 

Pure  Bone  Dust 

3.80 

4.61 

26.30 

Witherbee,  Sherman  Co.,  Port  Henry,  N.  Y. 

Barium-Phosphate,  

16.00 

Woodward  «&  Dieker.son,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Vegetable  Tankage 

3.90 

4.75 

King  Crab  Meal 

8.23 

10.00 

BULLETIN  335 

Brands  Registered  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  October  31,  1919 


36 


Guaranteed  Minimum 
Analysis 

Nitrogen 

Nitrogen  Equiva- 

lent to  Ammonia 

Total  Phosphoric 

Acid 

Available  Phos- 

phoric Acid 

Potash 

Woodward  & Dickerson,  Phila.,  Pa.-— Cont. 

Kins^  TVT^r^l  . - . 

% 

9.85 

% 

12.00 

% 

% 

% 

Hoof  rikI  H^m  ... 

14.40 

17.50 



14.82 

18.00 

Qn  Q r^'f  Ammr\nicJ  

20.18 

24.50 

Ar»ir1  T^ViriQTiVi  p 

15.00 

14.00 

Ar»iH  fp  

15.50 

15.00 

Ar»iH  ^V»  riQTiVi  p tp  . 

16.50 

16.00 

mpriiTTii^  T^rvnp  

1.65 

2.00 

25.00 



2.47 

3.00 

20.60 

Rr^np  

3.29 

4.00 

20.50 

UngT'^liri'i  H^nP  T'jinU'ag^P  

3.80 

4.60 

20.00 

Scroonod  

7.41 

9.00 

7.00 

PRESERVATION  REVIEW 

Ai|s4 ^ 


PRES 


